The New York Times has conducted an extraordinary look into Pretrial Intervention programs nationwide, including programs specifically in Georgia. As the Times notes, PTI programs are often exclusively controlled by prosecuting agencies and the requirements and restrictions for each program can vary wildly by jurisdiction. As we’ve written about before, PTI programs frequently have the same draconian impact on criminal defendants as private probation companies: they demand exorbitant financial costs while simultaneously holding the possibility of future prosecution over impoverished defendants’ heads.

Also discussed in the Times piece are the inequitable barriers required to enter into PTI programs in the first place. Certain defendants, like former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore’s son, Caleb, are allowed to enter PTI programs even after multiple previous arrests. Others are denied entry after only their first arrest, seemingly at the capricious will of the relevant prosecuting attorney. Such disparities only serve to further the divide between those with the influence, connection, and money to grease the wheels of justice and those left to hope for the best in the face of uncertain and demanding program entry requirements.

And yet, regardless of the potential downsides, we continue to believe that Pretrial Intervention programs are a benefit to criminal defendants in many circumstances. They afford clients the means to keep their criminals records clear and can oftentimes be the only mechanism available in order to keep people’s jobs and housing. Just like drug courts and first offender programs, PTI is certainly a double edged sword: there are significant gains for defendants who are able to successfully enter and complete such programs. The downsides, unfortunately, can be just as severe.

The full New York Times article can be found in the link below