From Pretrial Justice Institute:
Early in 2020, after significant reflection on our racial equity journey, we at the Pretrial Justice Institute reversed our long-held position in support of pretrial risk assessment instruments (RAIs), due to the inherent bias in these tools and the harm they perpetuate in communities of color. Following that announcement, many folks working in systems came back to us with what felt like the next logical question: If not risk assessment, then what? What’s the replacement?
That question gave us pause, because “either/or” thinking—i.e., the belief that one tool must be replaced by another—helped to drive the proliferation of RAIs in the first place. As PJI and others sought to “reform” a system that preyed on the poor through the use of money bond, eliminating cash bail didn’t seem to be enough; it needed to be replaced with something “better.” (Read our last paper to learn more.)
Many jurisdictions shifted from a money-based system to a risk-based one. But in doing so, our field avoided exploring some deeply-held assumptions that feed pretrial incarceration. For example, the assumption that courts need a reason to release someone rather than a reason to detain them. And that the system needs to do something (like collecting bonds or setting conditions) to get people back to court safely. By simply trading a bond schedule for an RAI without challenging these assumptions—and without asserting our values—we continue to perpetuate mass incarceration and structural racism.
So, where do we go from here? That depends on you. And us. And other justice practitioners, advocates, and community members who are not satisfied with having only two choices in a system that harms millions of people and families every day. Continue reading >>>
|
|
|
|
