Code of Ethics

NAPSA Code of Ethics for Pretrial Release and Diversion Practitioners

As a Pretrial Practitioner, I will:

1. Assist the criminal justice system in its dealings with pretrial defendants to the best of my ability and will conduct myself as a professional at all times

2. Respect the dignity of the individual, be they defendants, victims, or fellow criminal justice professionals;

3. Respect the dignity and integrity of the court;

4. Respect the presumption of innocence of all defendants, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and to uphold the fundamental right of every accused person who has been arrested and is facing prosecution under the U.S. criminal justice system;

5. Pledge that the information I provide to the court and the decisions I make are as accurate and objective as possible;

6. Treat all people equally regardless of race, national origin, disability, age, gender, sexual orientation or religion;

7. Protect the confidentiality of all information obtained, except when necessary to prevent serious, foreseeable, and/or imminent harm to a defendant or other identifiable person(s);

8. Avoid impropriety or the appearance of impropriety;

9. Avoid any conflicts of interest and will not evaluate, supervise and/or provide services to anyone I have an existing relationship with, nor enter into a personal or business relationship with anyone I evaluate, supervise or provide services to;

10. Continue to pursue my own professional development and education to further my expertise in the field;

11. Promote the growth of pretrial services, as well as encourage and cooperate with research and development in advancing the field;

12. Respect and promote the fundamental principles and professional standards which guide pretrial services and will implement these best practices to the extent I am able;

13. Refrain from providing legal advice to any pretrial defendants; and lastly,

14. Promise to conduct myself as an individual of good character who will act in good faith in making reliable ethical judgments.

August 2006