Dealing Effectively With Crowded Jails: The Judges' Role

That there is a jail crowding problem is well documented. The problem of jail crowding must b e acknowledged as one demanding the involvement of all key criminal justice actors. Judges have been identified as key decisionmakers playing a pivotal role in managing case flow and influencing jail population levels. What, then, is or should be the role of judges in dealing specifically with jail crowding? Conventional responses to this question have focused on either the role of the federal judge, who in the course of presiding over a case involving jail conditions is called upon to manage a facility, or the role of a trial judge in making sentencing decisions. Recent research efforts have recognized that a nexus exists between judicial and correctional systems that extends beyond overseeing and sentencing roles. This paper intends to expand the notion o f interdependence to encompass the entire criminal justice system with emphasis on the judge's contribution. Judges' decisions concerning the issuance of summonses, setting and reviewing bail, continuances and sentencing bear directly on the number of offenders in jail and/or length of the ir confinement. In numerous jurisdictions, judges have been instrumental in instituting changes aimed at dealing with the jail crowding problem and resulting in improvements in case processing. Judicial system‐wide leadership has resulted in the establishment of guidelines for pretrial services personnel to be used in releasing certain defendants pretrial and in making pretrial release recommendations for others in one jurisdiction and the institution of a policy prohibiting the detention of misdemeanor defendants—a major factor in reducing the jail population–in many other jurisdictions. Increased use of nonfinancial pretrial release options by judicial officers was a key element in achieving a substantial drop in the jail population in several communities. Judges have introduced delay reduction strategies which have served to expedite case processing as well as minimize the number of detainees in jail. Judges have also successfully implemented a full range of sentencing atternatives, including community service, restitution and treatment programs for persons convicted of alcohol or drug‐related offenses. This paper provides information on specific policies and procedures which have had a demonstrated impact on jail population levels without detracting from the operations of courts and, in most instances, contributing to improvements in judicial administration.