How Much Risk,and Risk of What? A Closer Look at Pretrial Rearrest and Risk Assessment

Abstract

Many studies of pretrial rearrest aggregate charges of all severities together, from high-level felonies to petty misdemeanors. Using a dataset of over 15,000 felony defendants who were released pretrial between July 2017 and July 2021 in New Mexico, we disaggregated rearrest outcomes by offense type and severity and explored how these factors related to the risk scores generated by the Public Safety Assessment (PSA). We found that the rates of rearrest for serious crimes during pretrial release were lower than the overall rearrest rates suggest. In particular, across all PSA score categories, approximately one-third of rearrests involved misdemeanors or petty misdemeanors. Of the two-thirds of rearrests for felony charges, most were for fourth-degree offenses. Rearrest for first- or second-degree felonies was rare, occurring in less than 0.1% and 1% of cases, respectively, even among defendants whose initial charge was severe and who received high risk scores from the PSA.

Keywords

pretrial detention and supervision recidivism risk assessment criminal justice policy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research. (2024). About the PSA. https://advancingpretrial.org/psa/about/

American Bar Association. (2007). ABA standards for criminal justice: Pretrial release (3rd ed.). https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_standards/pretrial_release.pdf

Angwin

Larson

Mattu

Kirchner

(2016). Machine bias. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing

Ball

W. D.

(2020). The Peter Parker problem. New York University Law Review, 95, 879.

Bell

Hong

McKeown

Voss

(2021). The recon approach: A new direction for machine learning in criminal law. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 37, 821–860.

Benjamin

(2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the New Jim Code. Wiley.

Berk

Heidari

Jabbari

Kearns

Roth

(2021). Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(1), 3–44.

Berk

R. A.

Sorenson

S. B.

Barnes

(2016). Forecasting domestic violence: A machine learning approach to help inform arraignment decisions. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 13(1), 94–115.

Brayne

Christin

(2021). Technologies of crime prediction: The reception of algorithms in policing and criminal courts. Social Problems, 68(3), 608–624.

10.

Chohlas-Wood

Coots

Nudell

Nyarko

Brunskill

Rogers

Goel

(2024). Automated reminders reduce incarceration for missed court dates: Evidence from a text message experiment [Preprint]. https://5harad.com/papers/court-reminders.pdf

11.

Copp

J. E.

Casey

Blomberg

T. G.

Pesta

(2022). Pretrial risk assessment instruments in practice: The role of judicial discretion in pretrial reform. Criminology & Public Policy, 21(2), 329–358.

12.

County of Los Angeles. (2021). Pretrial risk assessment tool validation. http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/probation/1109503_LosAngeles-UPDATEDCountyvalidation-FINAL7-1-21.pdf

13.

DeMichele

Baumgartner

Wenger

Barrick

Comfort

(2020). Public Safety Assessment: Predictive utility and differential prediction by race in Kentucky. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(2), 409–431.

14.

DeMichele

Comfort

Barrick

Baumgartner

(2021). The intuitive-override model: Nudging judges toward pretrial risk assessment instruments. Federal Probation, 85, 22.

15.

Digard

Swavola

(2019). Justice denied: The harmful and lasting effects of pretrial detention. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/Justice-Denied-Evidence-Brief.pdf

16.

Durham

(2021). Innocent until suspected guilty. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 90, 7.

17.

Esthappan

(2024). Assessing the risks of risk assessment: Institutional tensions and data-driven judicial decision-making in US pretrial hearings. Social Problems, 73(1), 156–170.

18.

Ferguson

De La Cerda

Guerin

Moore

(2021). Bernalillo County Public Safety Assessment validation study. Institute for Social Research, University of New Mexico. https://isr.unm.edu/reports/2021/bernalillo-county-public-safety-assessment-validation-study.pdf

19.

Garrett

B. L.

Monahan

(2020). Judging risk. California Law Review, 108, 439.

20.

Garrett

B. L.

Rudin

(2024). The right to a glass box: Rethinking the use of artificial intelligence in criminal justice. Cornell Law Review, 109(3), 561–627.

21.

Gelb

(2018). You get what you measure: New performance indicators needed to gauge progress of criminal justice reform. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/wiener/programs/pcj/files/you_get_what_you_measure.pdf

22.

Goel

Shroff

Skeem

J. L.

Slobogin

(2021). The accuracy, equity, and jurisprudence of criminal risk assessment. In Vogl

(Ed.), Research handbook on big data law (pp. 9–28). Edward Elgar Publishing.

23.

Gomez

(2024, May 22). Closing the revolving door: Changes to pre-trial detention could keep community safer. Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce. https://greaterabq.com/closing-the-revolving-door-changes-to-pre-trial-detention-could-keep-community-safer/

24.

Gouldin

L. P.

(2016). Disentangling flight risk from dangerousness. BYU Law Review, 2016, 837.

25.

Greiner

D. J.

Stubenberg

Halen

(2020). Validation of the PSA in Harris County, TX. https://a2jlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Validation-of-the-PSA-in-Harris-County-TX.pdf

26.

Greiner

D. J.

Stubenberg

Halen

(2021). Validation of the PSA in Kane County, IL. https://a2jlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Validation-of-the-PSA-in-Kane-County-IL.pdf

27.

Harris

H. M.

Goss

Gumbs

(2019). Pretrial risk assessment in California. Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/publication/pretrial-risk-assessment-in-california/

28.

Hartmann

Wenzelburger

(2021). Uncertainty, risk and the use of algorithms in policy decisions: A case study on criminal justice in the USA. Policy Sciences, 54:, 269–287.

29.

Hegreness

M. J.

(2013). America’s fundamental and vanishing right to bail. Arizona Law Review, 55, 909.

30.

Kearns

Roth

(2019). The ethical algorithm: The science of socially aware algorithm design. Oxford University Press.

31.

Kleinberg

Lakkaraju

Leskovec

Ludwig

Mullainathan

(2017). Human decisions and machine predictions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(1), 237–293.

32.

Kleinberg

Ludwig

Mullainathan

Sunstein

C. R.

(2020). Algorithms as discrimination detectors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117(48), 30096–30100.

33.

Knight

F. H.

(1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. In Hart, Schaffner and Marx prize essays. Houghton Mifflin.

34.

Koepke

J. L.

Robinson

D. G.

(2018). Danger ahead: Risk assessment and the future of bail reform. Washington Law Review, 93, 1725.

35.

Krauss

D. A.

Cook

G. I.

Klapatch

(2018). Risk assessment communication difficulties: An empirical examination of the effects of categorical versus probabilistic risk communication in sexually violent predator decisions. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 36(5), 532–553.

36.

Labrecque

R. M.

Walker

Burtch

Tibaduiza

DeMichele

(2023). The benefits of using the PSA RCM in Pierce County, Washington [Research brief]. RTI International.

37.

Labrecque

R. M.

Walker

Inkpen

Sheppard

DeMichele

(2023). The benefits of using the PSA RCM in Fulton County, Georgia [Research brief]. RTI International.

38.

Labrecque

R. M.

Walker

Janda

Kennedy

DeMichele

(2023). The benefits of using the PSA RCM in Thurston County, Washington [Research brief]. RTI International.

39.

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. (2018). The use of pretrial “risk assessment” instruments: A shared statement of civil rights concerns. http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/criminal-justice/Pretrial-Risk-Assessment-Full.pdf

40.

Lowenkamp

DeMichele

Warren

L. K.

(2020). Replication and extension of the Lucas County PSA Project. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3727443

41.

Mayson

S. G.

(2018). Dangerous defendants. Yale Law Journal, 127, 490–568.

42.

Mayson

S. G.

(2019). Bias in, bias out. Yale Law Journal, 128, 2218–2300.

43.

McCoy

(2023). The risks of pretrial risk assessment tools: Policy considerations for Michigan. University of Michigan. https://stpp.fordschool.umich.edu/sites/stpp/files/2023-05/Risk%20Assessment%20Policy%20Brief%20Final%205.2.23.pdf

44.

Moore

Ferguson

Guerin

(2023). How accurate are rebuttable presumptions of pretrial dangerousness? A natural experiment from New Mexico. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 20(2), 377–408.

45.

Moore

Gill

Bliss

Butler

Forrest

Lopresti

Maher

M. L.

Mentis

Shekhar

Stent

Turk

(2025). Concerning the responsible use of AI in the US criminal justice system. Communications of the ACM, 68(8), 41–44. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.00212

46.

Mousavi

Gigerenzer

(2014). Risk, uncertainty, and heuristics. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1671–1678.

47.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). The limits of recidivism: Measuring success after prison. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26459

48.

National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies. (2020). Standards on pretrial release: Revised 2020. https://napsa.memberclicks.net/standards

49.

National Scan of Policy and Practice in Risk Assessment. (n.d.). Bureau of justice assistance. https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/pb-scan-of-practice.pdf

50.

Neil

Zanger-Tishler

(2025). Algorithmic bias in criminal risk assessment: The consequences of racial differences in arrest as a measure of crime. Annual Review of Criminology, 8, 97–119.

51.

NYC Criminal Justice Agency. (2021). How many people with open criminal cases are re-arrested? https://criminaljustice.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Pretrial-Docketed-Rearrest-Contextual-Overview-December-2021-Update.pdf

52.

Olander

(2020). Cook County’s top judge mulls way to fight city’s violence—North Shore. Chicago Tribune. https://digitaledition.chicagotribune.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?guid=c2989f29-3ea9-4168-9c32-3b6a679964a3

53.

Overbeck

A. M.

(1986). Detention for the dangerous: The Bail Reform Act of 1984. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 55, 153–199.

54.

Partnership on AI. (2019). Report on algorithmic risk assessment tools in the U.S. criminal justice system. https://partnershiponai.org/paper/report-on-machine-learning-in-risk-assessment-tools-in-the-u-s-criminal-justice-system/

55.

Pew Research Center. (2020). What the data says (and does not say) about crime in the United States. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/

56.

Pruss

(2023). Ghosting the machine: Judicial resistance to a recidivism risk assessment instrument. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 312–323). Association for Computing Machinery.

57.

Rodriguez

(2023, November 20). Target 7 investigation: The revolving door and New Mexico’s crime crisis. KOAT. https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-criminal-justice-system/45794755

58.

Roth

(2017). Machine testimony. Yale Law Journal, 126(7), 1972–2057.

59.

Rudin

Wang

Coker

(2020). The age of secrecy and unfairness in recidivism prediction. Harvard Data Science Review, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.6ed64b30

60.

Schnacke

T. R.

(2017). “Model” bail laws: Re-drawing the line between pretrial release and detention. Center for Legal and Evidence-Based Practices. http://www.clebp.org/images/04-18-2017_Model_Bail_Laws_CLEPB_.pdf

61.

Schnacke

T. R.

Jones

M. R.

Brooker

C. M.

(2010). The history of bail and pretrial release. Pretrial Justice Institute.

62.

Scurich

(2018). The case against categorical risk estimates. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 36(5), 554–564.

63.

Severson

(2025). Stakeholder use and perceptions of the Public Safety Assessment (PSA): A survey of judicial actors. Institute for Social Research, University of New Mexico. https://isr.unm.edu/reports/2025/stakeholder-use-and-perceptions-of-the-public-safety-assessment-psa-in-new-mexico-a-survey-of-judicial-actors.pdf

64.

Severson

Ferguson

(2024). A revalidation study of Bernalillo County’s Public Safety Assessment. https://isr.unm.edu/reports/2024/a-revalidation-study-of-bernalillo-countys-public-safety-assessment.pdf

65.

Skog

Lacoe

(2021). Validation of the PSA in San Francisco. California Policy Lab. https://www.capolicylab.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Validation-of-the-PSA-in-San-Francisco.pdf

66.

Slobogin

(2021). Just algorithms: Using science to reduce incarceration and inform a jurisprudence of risk. Cambridge University Press.

67.

Slovic

Monahan

MacGregor

D. G.

(2000). Violence risk assessment and risk communication: The effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 271–296.

68.

Stevenson

M. T.

Mayson

S. G.

(2022). Pretrial detention and the value of liberty. Virginia Law Review, 108(3), 709–782.

69.

Stevenson

M. T.

Slobogin

(2018). Algorithmic risk assessments and the double-edged sword of youth. Washington University Law Review, 96, 681–706.

70.

VanNostrand

(2007). Legal and evidence-based practices: Application of legal principles, laws, and research to the field of pretrial services. https://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/sites/dcjs.virginia.gov/files/publications/corrections/legal-and-evidence-based-practices-application-legal-principles-laws-and-research-field-pretrial.pdf

71.

Washington Post. (2018, June 6). Where murders go unsolved. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/investigations/where-murders-go-unsolved/

72.

Windschitl

P. D.

Wells

G. D.

(1996). Measuring psychological uncertainty: Verbal versus numeric methods. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 343–364.

73.

Yacoby

Green

Griffin

C. L.

Jr Doshi-Velez

(2022). “If it didn’t happen, why would I change my decision?”: How judges respond to counterfactual explanations for the Public Safety Assessment. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, 10, 219–230.

74.

Zottola

S. A.

Crozier

W. E.

Ariturk

Desmarais

S. L.

(2023). Court date reminders reduce court nonappearance: A meta-analysis. Criminology & Public Policy, 22, 97–123