Implementation requires oversight, accountability

It comes as no surprise New Mexicans are scrutinizing the state’s use of pretrial detention, especially following headlines from the Solomon Pena case. But while this case is driving heightened public awareness of the state’s pretrial policies, the next steps essential to protect public safety have been pending for months, if not years, before this one case.

For starters, no one can address shortcomings in New Mexico’s detention policies without an honest accounting of the problem. That’s because the laws that govern how we deliver justice are just one part of an effective system that keeps communities safe. The rest of policy success comes after a law has been passed and lies in agency implementation and maintenance. That’s where lawmakers should focus now: on regular validation of the tool, adequate judicial guidance and training for judges.

A recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee focused on the use of a risk assessment tool. Developed to give judges a compiled source of information about a person’s likelihood of nonappearance or re-arrest prior to his or her trial, risk assessment tools are intended to be one of many factors judges use when weighing release and detention decisions. They should never be a sole factor, and they must be validated for the communities in which they’re used. It’s a simple process that compares the tool’s results with actual, local appearance and arrest outcomes of those released by judges pretrial to ensure the results are aligned with the unique details that impact criminality in any given location. Validation of any risk assessment should be mandatory and regularly required.

Alongside validation, adequate judicial guidelines help judges use their discretion in service of public safety without undue burden on taxpayers and people who pose no threat to their neighbors. Yet, New Mexico’s court guidance is woefully light on substance and clarity. In particular, judges need to be equipped with the information necessary to determine effective conditions of release that will ensure public safety as well as court appearances, in addition to the situations where no combination of conditions is sufficient to ensure those outcomes.

Finally, the courts must also implement robust training for all those required to interpret the results of a risk assessment, including regular refreshers so the people tasked with making crucial public safety decisions are equipped to do it as effectively as possible — every hearing, every case, every time.

New Mexico’s justice system is intended to protect public safety, hold offenders accountable, make victims whole, and provide rehabilitation to those who can safely reenter society after incarceration. In achieving those goals, implementation and maintenance matters. While further legislation isn’t needed to ensure courts are able to detain people who are dangerous while releasing those who can safely await trial at home, there is an important role for lawmakers in making sure they do so consistently.

There is much to be done to continue to improve public safety in New Mexico, but the crucial next steps are to focus on oversight to ensure the work is getting done: require frequent validation of the risk assessment tool, enumerate key factors and provide guidance in pretrial decision-making, and prescribe adequate training. Revisiting reforms that have already been made are little more than a distraction in the meantime.