Report on Virginia’s Pretrial Justice System and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

An analysis of Virginia’s pretrial justice system reveals significant challenges that impact its alignment with key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While the Commonwealth has implemented progressive policies, persistent inefficiencies related to court appearances, pretrial detention, and due process delays undermine objectives for justice, equality, and economic stability. This report examines these issues through the lens of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

Institutional Effectiveness and Access to Justice: The Challenge of ‘Failure to Appear’ (FTA)

The issue of defendants failing to appear (FTA) for court dates directly challenges the efficacy and accessibility of Virginia’s judicial institutions, a core concern of SDG 16. While Virginia’s FTA rate of 15.7 percent in 2022 is comparatively low, it represents a systemic friction that consumes state resources and disproportionately affects defendants.

Key Findings on FTA and Institutional Impact

• Causes of FTA: Most instances of FTA are not intentional acts of evading justice but stem from logistical and communication barriers, such as forgotten court dates or lack of transportation. This points to an institutional gap in ensuring all individuals can navigate the justice process, a prerequisite for achieving SDG 16.3 (equal access to justice).
• Systemic Consequences: Each FTA incident triggers a cascade of costly administrative and law enforcement actions, including the issuance of bench warrants and subsequent arrests. This diverts public funds and personnel from proactive crime prevention and community safety initiatives, hindering progress toward building effective and accountable institutions (SDG 16.6).
• Current Mitigation Efforts: Virginia has made positive strides that align with SDG principles.
  1. Elimination of driver’s license suspension for FTA, which removes a barrier to employment and economic stability (SDG 8).
  2. Abolition of new FTA charges for incarcerated individuals, reducing redundant punitive measures.

Despite these measures, the state’s opt-in court reminder system and limited flexibility for excused absences indicate a need for more robust, proactive systems to ensure the justice process is inclusive and accessible to all.

Pretrial Detention: A Driver of Inequality and Economic Disruption

Virginia’s policies on pretrial release and detention have profound implications for social equity and economic well-being, directly engaging SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 1 (No Poverty).

Analysis of Pretrial Release Mechanisms

• Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI): The use of the VPRAI is a positive step toward evidence-based decision-making. Its goal to identify the “least restrictive terms and conditions of bail” supports the principle of proportionate justice. However, procedural delays in its application mean many individuals are detained before an assessment can be completed.
• The Persistence of Cash Bail: The continued use of cash bail for all offenses, including misdemeanors, perpetuates a system of wealth-based detention. This practice is in direct conflict with SDG 10, as it creates a two-tiered justice system where freedom is contingent on economic status. Individuals unable to afford bail are detained, while those with financial means are released, regardless of their assessed risk.
• Economic and Social Costs of Detention:
  1. Undermining Decent Work (SDG 8): Research confirms that even brief periods of pretrial detention significantly increase the risk of job loss and create long-term barriers to securing gainful employment.
  2. Exacerbating Poverty (SDG 1): The financial strain of cash bail and lost income can push families into poverty. With approximately 13,000 individuals held pretrial in Virginia at a cost of around $86 per day per inmate, public funds are directed toward incarceration rather than poverty-reduction and community development programs.
  3. Threatening Community Safety (SDG 11): Pretrial detention has been shown to increase the likelihood of future criminal activity, thereby undermining the goal of creating safe and sustainable communities.

Systemic Delays and the Erosion of Due Process

Protracted delays within Virginia’s court system represent a fundamental barrier to ensuring timely and equal access to justice for all, as mandated by SDG 16.3. The state’s speedy trial laws, which require trials within five months for detained individuals, are frequently extended, leading to prolonged periods of pretrial incarceration.

Factors Contributing to Due Process Delays

• Judicial Backlogs: Staffing shortages among judges and court personnel, compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic, have created significant case backlogs that delay justice for defendants, victims, and communities.
• High-Profile Failures: Extreme cases, including defendants being jailed for three, five, and even seven years before trial, highlight a systemic failure to uphold the fundamental right to a speedy trial.
• Cost of Inefficiency: Court delays are not only an injustice to the accused but also a significant waste of public funds. The estimated $52 billion spent annually on U.S. court systems is inflated by structural inefficiencies that undermine public trust and the rule of law, key components of strong institutions under SDG 16.

Conclusion: A Call for Reform to Align with Sustainable Development

While Virginia has established a foundation for progressive pretrial justice, significant reforms are necessary to align its system with the global imperatives of the Sustainable Development Goals. The current reliance on cash bail, procedural delays, and court backlogs actively works against the principles of equality, economic opportunity, and effective justice. By modernizing its approach to pretrial services, Virginia can create a fairer, more efficient system that reduces unnecessary incarceration, promotes economic stability, and builds stronger, more accountable institutions for a sustainable future.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article’s primary focus is on the criminal justice system in Virginia, specifically its pretrial processes. It discusses issues like court inefficiencies, prolonged detention, bail policies, and court backlogs, which are all central to the functioning of justice institutions. The text highlights the need for a “fairer, more efficient system” to improve public trust and ensure justice, directly aligning with the goal of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• The article addresses inequalities within the justice system, particularly those based on economic status. The discussion on cash bail points out that “individuals who are unable to afford bail will be detained for a longer period.” This practice creates a system where the ability to pay determines one’s freedom before a trial, leading to unequal outcomes and disproportionately affecting those with fewer financial resources.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

• The article connects pretrial detention directly to negative economic outcomes for individuals. It states that defendants who are “detained even for a brief duration can experience significant challenges, including an increased risk of job loss and long-term difficulties securing gainful employment.” This undermines the goal of achieving productive employment and decent work for all.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   This target is relevant because the article details multiple barriers to equal access to justice. Issues such as “prolonged pretrial detention,” a “lack of counsel at the initial bail setting,” and the failure of the “speedy trial law” to be “that expedient” all point to systemic problems in ensuring the rule of law is applied equally and efficiently. The article highlights cases where defendants were “jailed for seven years before trial,” which is a severe violation of the principle of a speedy trial and access to justice.

2. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The article extensively critiques the ineffectiveness of court systems. It describes “systemic issues in our legal process,” “significant court backlogs,” and “staffing shortages—including judges and court personnel” as contributors to “extended case delays, unnecessary incarceration, and increased costs.” These points directly address the need for more effective and efficient institutions as called for in this target.

3. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.

   This target is addressed through the article’s critique of the cash bail system. The text explains that Virginia “still uses cash bail for all offenses,” which means that an individual’s economic status is a key factor in whether they are detained. This practice leads to the exclusion of poorer individuals from their communities and jobs simply because they cannot afford bail, directly contradicting the goal of promoting inclusion irrespective of economic status.

4. Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value.

   The article links the justice system’s practices to employment. It explicitly states that pretrial detention can lead to an “increased risk of job loss and long-term difficulties securing gainful employment.” By keeping individuals who have not been convicted of a crime incarcerated, the system actively hinders their ability to maintain employment, working against the objective of full and productive employment for all.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Proportion of unsentenced detainees: The article provides a direct indicator by stating, “approximately 13,000 individuals (and 46 percent of the jail population) are held at any given time without being convicted of any crime.” This metric can be used to measure progress towards ensuring access to justice and reducing unnecessary detention (Target 16.3).
• Failure to Appear (FTA) rate: The article provides specific data on FTA rates as an indicator of court system efficiency. It notes that “Virginia’s FTA rate decreased from 16.6 percent in 2021 to 15.7 percent in 2022; however, it remains higher than its pre-pandemic rate of 12.6 percent in 2019.” This data helps measure the effectiveness of institutional practices (Target 16.6).
• Length of pretrial detention: The article implies this as a key indicator of court inefficiency and lack of a speedy trial. It provides anecdotal but powerful evidence with examples of defendants being “jailed for seven years before trial,” “detained for three years,” and “held for five years.” Tracking the average length of pretrial detention would measure progress toward Target 16.3.
• Cost of incarceration: The article mentions the financial burden of the system, stating it costs “around $86 a day to house an inmate.” This economic indicator reflects the efficiency of the justice institutions (Target 16.6) and the cost of policies like cash bail.
• Reliance on cash bail: The article states that “Virginia still uses cash bail for all offenses, including misdemeanors.” The prevalence of cash bail can serve as an indicator for measuring economic inequality within the justice system (Target 10.2).

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: rstreet.org