Study Reveals Proportion of NYPD Backgrounded Judges Impacting Bail Decisions in NYC Courts
A new study has found that judges with law enforcement backgrounds are more likely to detain individuals during their first court appearances, while also setting higher bail amounts compared to those without a policing background.
Researchers analyzed nearly 70,000 New York City criminal court arraignments and categorized the presiding judges according to their professional backgrounds. They discovered that judges with law enforcement backgrounds were about four percentage points more likely to order detention than those without such backgrounds. Furthermore, when those judges set cash bail, they averaged amounts roughly one-third higher on average.
The study's findings have significant implications for efforts aimed at reducing jail populations in New York City courts. According to the researchers' estimates, replacing a single judge with an NYPD background would result in approximately 65 fewer detentions and $6 million less in imposed cash bail over a typical ten-year term. This translates to roughly seventeen years of avoided jail time, which would save taxpayers around $8.7 million in detention costs.
Conversely, the study did not find any statistically significant differences among judges with legal services or public defense backgrounds. However, it also notes that the findings have broad relevance for efforts aimed at reducing jail populations and underscores the importance of having more data-driven discussions about what happens in NYC courts.
The mayor's advisory committee on the judiciary is set to play a crucial role in shaping judicial appointments in the city. Mayor Zohran Mamdani has laid out new guidelines emphasizing transparency and professional diversity, but some concerns remain regarding the committee's opaque process and potential for rewarding political connections over merit-based appointments.
While the study highlights the importance of understanding how judges' backgrounds influence their decisions, it also acknowledges that it cannot determine whether a judge's past experience directly impacts their rulings. Additionally, factors beyond individual judicial decisions may also impact bail requests or algorithms used in risk assessments.
As the city moves forward with its efforts to increase transparency and diversity within the judiciary, Scrutinize has welcomed some of Mamdani's new measures but emphasized that more work is needed to create a truly open process. The mayor's office did not respond to requests for comment on the study or Mamdani's judicial committee.
A new study has found that judges with law enforcement backgrounds are more likely to detain individuals during their first court appearances, while also setting higher bail amounts compared to those without a policing background.
Researchers analyzed nearly 70,000 New York City criminal court arraignments and categorized the presiding judges according to their professional backgrounds. They discovered that judges with law enforcement backgrounds were about four percentage points more likely to order detention than those without such backgrounds. Furthermore, when those judges set cash bail, they averaged amounts roughly one-third higher on average.
The study's findings have significant implications for efforts aimed at reducing jail populations in New York City courts. According to the researchers' estimates, replacing a single judge with an NYPD background would result in approximately 65 fewer detentions and $6 million less in imposed cash bail over a typical ten-year term. This translates to roughly seventeen years of avoided jail time, which would save taxpayers around $8.7 million in detention costs.
Conversely, the study did not find any statistically significant differences among judges with legal services or public defense backgrounds. However, it also notes that the findings have broad relevance for efforts aimed at reducing jail populations and underscores the importance of having more data-driven discussions about what happens in NYC courts.
The mayor's advisory committee on the judiciary is set to play a crucial role in shaping judicial appointments in the city. Mayor Zohran Mamdani has laid out new guidelines emphasizing transparency and professional diversity, but some concerns remain regarding the committee's opaque process and potential for rewarding political connections over merit-based appointments.
While the study highlights the importance of understanding how judges' backgrounds influence their decisions, it also acknowledges that it cannot determine whether a judge's past experience directly impacts their rulings. Additionally, factors beyond individual judicial decisions may also impact bail requests or algorithms used in risk assessments.
As the city moves forward with its efforts to increase transparency and diversity within the judiciary, Scrutinize has welcomed some of Mamdani's new measures but emphasized that more work is needed to create a truly open process. The mayor's office did not respond to requests for comment on the study or Mamdani's judicial committee.
On a school level, it reminds me of how important it is for us to understand each other's perspectives too. In class discussions, sometimes people might have different opinions because of their experiences or backgrounds. But that doesn't mean we can't learn from them and try to see things from their point of view.
.
. This is where things get really interesting - if we could replace one judge with an NYPD background, it'd save taxpayers 65 fewer detentions and $6 million in bail over a decade. That's like, whoa 
. What I'm curious about is how they're going to actually implement this stuff and make sure these changes stick. Transparency and professional diversity are good starting points, but we need more than just guidelines if we wanna see real change 
. It's all kinda complicated, but I guess this study is a good starting point for the conversation 
. I mean we already know there's a lot of systemic issues at play in the justice system, now it seems like even something as simple as a judge's background could be impacting those decisions... what's next? Are we gonna start policing judges too? 
It just don't sit right with me that some people are getting away scot-free because of their connections 
.
We need transparency and accountability in every single aspect of our justice system!
. I mean, 65 fewer detentions and $6 million less in bail over ten years? That's a huge difference 
17 years of avoided jail time! And that's not just good for the prisoners, but also for taxpayers 
i can see why the mayor's trying to increase transparency and diversity in the judiciary tho 
it'd be dope to have a more open process for making appointments 
but yeah, more work is needed 
. But hey, at least we can count on some judges to bring some real-world experience to the bench... who knows, maybe one day we'll have a judge who's an ex-con and sets really low bail amounts... that would be a first! 
so judges w/ law enforcement background r more likely 2 detain ppl & set higher bail amounts thats wild 
Like, isn't the whole point of reducing jail populations to make a dent in that? And what about all those years of avoiding jail time and saving taxpayers $8.7 million... sounds like a pretty good deal, but is it really addressing the root issue? 
Interesting that it could be as high as $8.7 million avoided jail time & saving taxpayers all that cash! 
... and we used to do these simulations where you'd have a judge, prosecutor, and defendant all sitting around this table trying to negotiate a deal. It was super intense! 
Anyway, this study about NYPD judges is wild, right? Like, four percentage points more likely to detain someone? That's crazy. And the fact that replacing one of these guys could save taxpayers like $8.7 million in detention costs? That's some serious Benjamins 
. It's crazy that it still happens like this in 2025! The fact that a law enforcement background can just swing someone's bail up by so much is wild, you feel? They're saying that if they replaced one of these cops-turned-judges with someone from a legal services background, it'd make a huge difference 
... Just thinking about it, how would they even know what works and what doesn't? The whole policing background thing just seems like too much of an influence on their rulings. And what's with the lack of transparency in the mayor's committee? shouldn't we be able to see who's getting the judgeship and why?