Remand for Plea. Bail Decisions and Plea Bargaining as Commensurate Decisions

Abstract

In this paper, we provide empirical evidence from a study of Canadian bail hearings that suggests that, unlike new penology predictions, the disciplinary focus of the courts has not been totally displaced by risk reasoning. Our analysis reveals that individualized, moral assessments of accused persons have a strong influence on remand decisions. Accused persons who receive a negative personality assessment by the police are much more likely to be detained than those who receive neutral assessments. Our analysis also reveals that these subjective character evaluations help explain racial differences in the likelihood of pre-trial detention. Furthermore, rather than 'managing risk', our findings reveal that the detention of accused persons is a rather important resource that the prosecution uses to encourage (or coerce) guilty pleas from accused persons. Those accused who are not held in pre-trial custody, by contrast, are much more likely to have all of their charges withdrawn by the prosecution. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.