Study Reveals Bias in NYC Judges' Bail Decisions - Law Enforcement Backgrounds Linked to Higher Detention Rates, Stricter Bail.
A new study analyzing nearly 70,000 New York City criminal court arraignments has uncovered disturbing trends in the bail decisions made by judges with law enforcement backgrounds. According to researchers, these judges are more likely to detain individuals following their first court appearances and set higher bail amounts than those without such a background.
The findings come as Mayor Zohran Mamdani is assembling the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary, which screens and recommends most of the city's Criminal Court and Family Court judges. The committee has undergone significant changes under Mamdani's administration, including new guidelines around transparency and professional diversity.
Researchers Oded Oren and Chad Topaz analyzed the study data to determine whether law enforcement backgrounds influence judicial decisions. They found that judges with a history in policing were approximately 4 percentage points more likely to order detention than their counterparts without such experience. Furthermore, when these judges set cash bail, the amounts were roughly one-third higher on average.
The researchers estimate that replacing a judge with a law enforcement background could result in significant reductions in detentions and bail costs over a decade. Specifically, they predict 65 fewer detentions and $6 million less in imposed cash bail.
In contrast, judges with backgrounds in legal services or public defense did not show statistically significant differences in their decisions. However, the study's findings have broad relevance for efforts to reduce jail populations.
Scrutinize, a judicial transparency group, welcomed the new research as an opportunity for robust discussion about the court system. Oren said that having such data is "important and useful" for evaluating crime and public safety policies.
While the city's five district attorneys' offices declined to comment on the study or Mamdani's advisory committee, the mayor has taken steps to increase transparency in judicial appointments. Under a new executive order, the committee will release aggregate data about its work, including demographic information about applicants and appointees. Additionally, the committee will create a publicly searchable record identifying appointees, their courts, and appointment dates.
However, Scrutinize's Oren argued that more needs to be done to increase transparency in the judicial selection process. "That's not something a nonprofit should be doing," he said. "That's information that the system itself should be providing."
Overall, the study highlights the need for greater diversity and transparency in New York City's judiciary. As the city moves forward with its judicial appointments, it will be crucial to address these concerns and ensure that all 8.5 million New Yorkers see themselves reflected on the bench.
A new study analyzing nearly 70,000 New York City criminal court arraignments has uncovered disturbing trends in the bail decisions made by judges with law enforcement backgrounds. According to researchers, these judges are more likely to detain individuals following their first court appearances and set higher bail amounts than those without such a background.
The findings come as Mayor Zohran Mamdani is assembling the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary, which screens and recommends most of the city's Criminal Court and Family Court judges. The committee has undergone significant changes under Mamdani's administration, including new guidelines around transparency and professional diversity.
Researchers Oded Oren and Chad Topaz analyzed the study data to determine whether law enforcement backgrounds influence judicial decisions. They found that judges with a history in policing were approximately 4 percentage points more likely to order detention than their counterparts without such experience. Furthermore, when these judges set cash bail, the amounts were roughly one-third higher on average.
The researchers estimate that replacing a judge with a law enforcement background could result in significant reductions in detentions and bail costs over a decade. Specifically, they predict 65 fewer detentions and $6 million less in imposed cash bail.
In contrast, judges with backgrounds in legal services or public defense did not show statistically significant differences in their decisions. However, the study's findings have broad relevance for efforts to reduce jail populations.
Scrutinize, a judicial transparency group, welcomed the new research as an opportunity for robust discussion about the court system. Oren said that having such data is "important and useful" for evaluating crime and public safety policies.
While the city's five district attorneys' offices declined to comment on the study or Mamdani's advisory committee, the mayor has taken steps to increase transparency in judicial appointments. Under a new executive order, the committee will release aggregate data about its work, including demographic information about applicants and appointees. Additionally, the committee will create a publicly searchable record identifying appointees, their courts, and appointment dates.
However, Scrutinize's Oren argued that more needs to be done to increase transparency in the judicial selection process. "That's not something a nonprofit should be doing," he said. "That's information that the system itself should be providing."
Overall, the study highlights the need for greater diversity and transparency in New York City's judiciary. As the city moves forward with its judicial appointments, it will be crucial to address these concerns and ensure that all 8.5 million New Yorkers see themselves reflected on the bench.
. That don't sound right. If we wanna reduce jail populations, we should be lookin at ways to help people get back on their feet instead of throwin 'em in the slammer 
.
. It's like they say, "you can't judge someone by their past" and in this case, we should definitely be lookin' at the present & future too 
.
. Maybe if everyone was more open & honest, we could find a way to make the system work better for everybody 
.
What about people with actual experience in social work or counseling? Why aren't they considered for these positions?
. It's like they say, "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"... or in this case, those who don't address their own biases 
. A law enforcement background influencing judicial decisions? Yeah, that's a pretty big red flag 
. And the fact that judges with such backgrounds are more likely to detain and set higher bail amounts for minorities? Not cool 
.
. The idea that replacing one judge with another could lead to significant reductions in detentions and bail costs over time? Sounds about right to me 
.
. The real question is, what can be done to actually address these biases and ensure that everyone sees themselves reflected on the bench? That's what I'm really rooting for 
. The study is just showing that people from similar walks of life tend to have similar experiences and perspectives, which can influence their decision-making. It's not like they're being biased against minorities or anyone else 
. And honestly, having more law enforcement backgrounded judges could be beneficial in certain cases, like gang-related crimes or high-stakes investigations. The issue is more about ensuring that diverse perspectives are represented on the bench, but I don't think it's as simple as just saying "more diversity" 
.