Objectives <p>Research consistently shows a strong link between offense seriousness and public support for harsh sentencing. Yet cases often involve multiple, sometimes contradictory signals, especially in the pretrial process, where decisions are discretionary and have consequences for defendants. Drawing on factors the public prioritizes for pretrial decisions, we adapt signaling theory to test whether mixed signaling weakens the assumption that more serious offenses lead to more severe outcomes.</p> Methods <p>Using data from a 2³ factorial vignette experiment, we examine how participants make pretrial supervision and bail decisions in hypothetical cases.</p> Results <p>Findings show that when other signals are present, there are no meaningful differences in public preferences for supervision type or bail amounts between defendants charged with identity theft and robbery.</p> Conclusions <p> Pretrial justice reforms solely targeting offense type may be misguided; consistent with signaling theory, they should account for the broader mix of factors that shape decision-making</p>