New York City judges with law enforcement backgrounds are more likely to detain people following their first court appearances and set higher bail than those without such a background.
According to a new study released ahead of its broader publication, nearly 70,000 New York City criminal court arraignments were analyzed by researchers Oded Oren and Chad Topaz. The data showed that judges with law enforcement backgrounds ordered detention about 4 percentage points more often than those who did not have this background. When these judges set cash bail, the amounts were approximately one-third higher on average.
The study's findings suggest that replacing a judge with a law enforcement background could result in fewer detentions and lower cash bail. The researchers estimate that this would translate to 65 fewer detentions and $6 million less in imposed cash bail over a typical 10-year term, saving taxpayers around $8.7 million in detention costs.
In contrast, judges with legal services backgrounds or public defense backgrounds did not show statistically significant differences in their decision-making. However, the study emphasizes the importance of data-driven discussions on crime and public safety.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani's recent appointments to the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary have sparked interest in judicial background and its impact on court decisions. As part of his new guidelines, the committee will screen most of the city's Criminal Court and Family Court judges.
Critics argue that the opaque process behind judicial appointments could lead to rewards for political connections rather than merit. Oded Oren from Scrutinize and Chad Topaz from Williams College co-authored the paper highlighting these concerns.
The Mayor’s Advisory Committee has taken steps towards greater transparency, including a new executive order requiring the committee to engage with public defenders, attorneys who represent parents and children in family court, and those working in indigent legal services. However, some argue that more needs to be done to make the process fully open and transparent.
The city's five district attorney offices declined to comment on the study or Mamdani's advisory committee. The New York City Bar Association also failed to respond, while the state’s district attorney association and the Legal Aid Society declined to comment as well.
Scrutinize emphasizes that further policy changes are necessary for a complete overhaul of the judicial appointment process. While the new executive order provides a starting point, Oren notes that more information should be released publicly regarding judges' terms and potential reappointments.
According to a new study released ahead of its broader publication, nearly 70,000 New York City criminal court arraignments were analyzed by researchers Oded Oren and Chad Topaz. The data showed that judges with law enforcement backgrounds ordered detention about 4 percentage points more often than those who did not have this background. When these judges set cash bail, the amounts were approximately one-third higher on average.
The study's findings suggest that replacing a judge with a law enforcement background could result in fewer detentions and lower cash bail. The researchers estimate that this would translate to 65 fewer detentions and $6 million less in imposed cash bail over a typical 10-year term, saving taxpayers around $8.7 million in detention costs.
In contrast, judges with legal services backgrounds or public defense backgrounds did not show statistically significant differences in their decision-making. However, the study emphasizes the importance of data-driven discussions on crime and public safety.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani's recent appointments to the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary have sparked interest in judicial background and its impact on court decisions. As part of his new guidelines, the committee will screen most of the city's Criminal Court and Family Court judges.
Critics argue that the opaque process behind judicial appointments could lead to rewards for political connections rather than merit. Oded Oren from Scrutinize and Chad Topaz from Williams College co-authored the paper highlighting these concerns.
The Mayor’s Advisory Committee has taken steps towards greater transparency, including a new executive order requiring the committee to engage with public defenders, attorneys who represent parents and children in family court, and those working in indigent legal services. However, some argue that more needs to be done to make the process fully open and transparent.
The city's five district attorney offices declined to comment on the study or Mamdani's advisory committee. The New York City Bar Association also failed to respond, while the state’s district attorney association and the Legal Aid Society declined to comment as well.
Scrutinize emphasizes that further policy changes are necessary for a complete overhaul of the judicial appointment process. While the new executive order provides a starting point, Oren notes that more information should be released publicly regarding judges' terms and potential reappointments.
gotta wonder how many innocent ppl got unfairly detained cuz of it 
it makes sense that ppl w/ legal services backgrounds or public defense backgrounds made no difference, cuz they're the ones who'd be advocating for justice & fairness anyway 
think we need 2 take a closer look at this process & make sure it's about finding the best judge 4 the job, not just whoever has connections 
]
x
. i mean, what even is the point of having a justice system if we're gonna make people pay for being poor or something? 
.
I'm not sure if replacing law enforcement background judges with those who've worked in legal services is the answer, but it's worth exploring 
. On one hand, you gotta wonder if having a former cop on the bench could lead to, like, a whole different perspective on justice 
. But at the same time, you don't want to risk compromising someone's objectivity because of their past experience 
.
. Maybe we need to be focusing more on finding people who can work with both sides of the issue 
. We just gotta keep having these conversations and seeing what works best for everyone 
i mean, to me, it seems like a total mixed bag 
. maybe we should be looking at whats going on behind the scenes instead of making assumptions about who gets appointed to these positions? 
also, $8.7 million less in detention costs sounds like a pretty sweet deal