New York City Judges with Law Enforcement Backing Detain More and Set Higher Bail, Study Reveals
A recent study has shed light on the concerning trend of New York City judges with law enforcement backgrounds detaining more people after their first court appearances and setting higher bail amounts. The research, which analyzed nearly 70,000 criminal court arraignments, found that judges with a law enforcement background were approximately 4 percentage points more likely to order detention than those without such a background.
The study's findings have significant implications for the city's justice system, as they suggest that the presence of law enforcement backgrounds among judges may be contributing to increased detention rates and higher bail amounts. According to the research, replacing one judge with a law enforcement background could result in 65 fewer detentions, $6 million less in imposed cash bail over a 10-year term, and approximately 17 years of jail time avoided.
The study's authors emphasize that while their findings are not yet definitive, they do highlight the importance of understanding how judges' backgrounds may shape their decisions. "Having this kind of information is important and useful because people come to discussion about crime and public safety from different backgrounds and with different ideas," said Oded Oren, executive director of Scrutinize.
The recent appointment of Mayor Zohran Mamdani's advisory committee on the judiciary has sparked renewed attention on judicial background and its impact on court decisions. The committee, which screens and recommends most of the city's Criminal Court and Family Court judges, has taken steps to increase transparency and professional diversity in its appointments process.
While some progress has been made, Scrutinize and other reform groups argue that more work needs to be done to address concerns around patronage and secrecy in the appointment process. "That's not something a nonprofit should be doing," said Oren, "that's information that the system itself should be providing."
The study's findings are just one piece of evidence highlighting the need for greater scrutiny and oversight of judicial appointments in New York City. As the city continues to navigate its justice system, it is essential that policymakers prioritize transparency, equity, and accountability in their decision-making processes.
A recent study has shed light on the concerning trend of New York City judges with law enforcement backgrounds detaining more people after their first court appearances and setting higher bail amounts. The research, which analyzed nearly 70,000 criminal court arraignments, found that judges with a law enforcement background were approximately 4 percentage points more likely to order detention than those without such a background.
The study's findings have significant implications for the city's justice system, as they suggest that the presence of law enforcement backgrounds among judges may be contributing to increased detention rates and higher bail amounts. According to the research, replacing one judge with a law enforcement background could result in 65 fewer detentions, $6 million less in imposed cash bail over a 10-year term, and approximately 17 years of jail time avoided.
The study's authors emphasize that while their findings are not yet definitive, they do highlight the importance of understanding how judges' backgrounds may shape their decisions. "Having this kind of information is important and useful because people come to discussion about crime and public safety from different backgrounds and with different ideas," said Oded Oren, executive director of Scrutinize.
The recent appointment of Mayor Zohran Mamdani's advisory committee on the judiciary has sparked renewed attention on judicial background and its impact on court decisions. The committee, which screens and recommends most of the city's Criminal Court and Family Court judges, has taken steps to increase transparency and professional diversity in its appointments process.
While some progress has been made, Scrutinize and other reform groups argue that more work needs to be done to address concerns around patronage and secrecy in the appointment process. "That's not something a nonprofit should be doing," said Oren, "that's information that the system itself should be providing."
The study's findings are just one piece of evidence highlighting the need for greater scrutiny and oversight of judicial appointments in New York City. As the city continues to navigate its justice system, it is essential that policymakers prioritize transparency, equity, and accountability in their decision-making processes.
I mean, think about it, if judges with a law enforcement background are more likely to detain people and set higher bail amounts, isn't that just another example of how the system is stacked against marginalized communities? 
It's like they're perpetuating the very same issues they're supposed to be fixing. And now we're trying to pass it off as some kind of 'transparency' by having a committee review and recommend judges? Come on, that's just a way to paper over the problem. We need real change, not just lip service. 
. we need to get rid of this patronage system where law enforcement types are getting appointed without any vetting 
.
. if we r gonna reform the system, we gotta make sure ppl are held accountable for their actions, not just bcos of who's sittin on the bench. it's all about justice now, not politics 
.
like, shouldn't we be expecting that from them? 
but at the same time... I guess it's possible that their background could influence their decisions in a way that's not ideal for the justice system. 
maybe we should look into why some judges with law enforcement backgrounds are more likely to detain people? is it cuz they're still applying old-school policing tactics? 
! I mean, think about it - judges with law enforcement backgrounds being more likely to detain people after just one court appearance? It's like something straight out of a movie where the bad guys always win 
. And $6 million less in cash bail over 10 years? That's some serious change that could make a huge difference for people who are already struggling.
. This study might not have all the answers, but I think it's a good starting point for some real conversations 
.
! It's outrageous that judges with a law enforcement background are detaining more people after just one court appearance. I mean, what even is the logic behind that? Do they really think it'll deter crime or something? 
Newsflash: crime rates have nothing to do with bail amounts or detention rates.
. We should be talking about how to make our justice system more equitable and just, not how to further perpetuate systemic racism and classism. And the committee's efforts to increase transparency and professional diversity in appointments? It's a drop in the bucket compared to what we really need – real change and accountability! 
. I think the city needs to take a closer look at how they're selecting judges and make sure it's based on merit, not who knows someone 
. We should be aiming for fairness and equality in the justice system, not perpetuating systemic bias 
. And btw, $6 million less in cash bail over 10 years? That's some serious money 
.
. I mean, 4 percentage points more likely to detain someone? That's a big deal. It feels like they're just tryin' to keep the system rigged against people who can't afford bail 
. Can't have folks makin' decisions without even knowin' where they came from or what their perspectives are. It's time for some real change, you know? 
has anyone else noticed how sketchy this whole thing is?
. Transparency and accountability are key here. We should be scrutinizing these appointments to ensure they're making decisions based on facts, not their own experiences.