Beyond Discretion: Prosecution, the Logic of Sovereignty, and the Limits of Law

Today it is widely recognized in both academic literature and the mainstream media that prosecutors have substantial discretion. Yet prosecutorial decisions involve, in our view, something more than a straightforward exercise of discretion. In this article we move from the language of discretion to that of sovereignty to describe prosecutorial power. In so doing we want to move from the language of administration to the language of power. Focusing on the decision not to prosecute, we argue that prosecutorial decisions participate in, and exemplify, the logic of sovereignty and its complex relationship to legality.
By drawing on Carl Schmitt and Giorgio Agamben, we seek to recast prosecutorial decision making as something that allows prosecutors to grant exemptions from the reach of valid law. The sovereign power of prosecutors is most vividly on display when they decline to bring charges where there is a legally sufficient basis for doing so. By exercising what is, in most jurisdictions, an all but unreviewable power, they can and do exempt individuals from the reach of valid law.     

Plea bargaining and deterrence: An institutional approach

Previous economic analyses of plea bargaining have largely ignored its impact on the deterrence of crime. Instead, they have focused on the bargaining between a defendant and a prosecutor once a crime has been committed. This article remedies this deficiency by asking how the practice of plea bargaining influences the determination of criminal punishment and thereby the supply of crime by rational offenders. The key question examined is, how do the ex post objectives of prosecutors affect the ability of legislatures to implement criminal punishments aimed at achieving optimal deterrence? Various prosecutorial objectives are considered in answering this question.     

Calling Your Bluff: How Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys Adapt Plea Bargaining Strategies to Increased Formalization

This ethnographic work examines the inner workings of a highly formalized plea bargaining unit in a large urban prosecutor’s office from the lawyers’ point of view. Observations of forty two plea negotiations between prosecutors and defense attorneys along with both formal and informal interviews reveal how the legal actors adapt to institutional rules in the pursuit of the both efficiency and justice. In the face of ever increasing prosecutorial power, defense attorneys find ways to equalize the balance when cases do not fit the “normal crimes” model. Examination of negotiating strategy and discourse give further insight into whether prosecutors and defense attorneys behave differently under highly rationalized systems of plea‐bargaining compared with traditional models previously studied.     

Examining Prosecutorial Discretion in Federal Criminal Cases: Legal and Extra-Legal Determinants of Declination and Charge Change Decisions

Abstract

From 2000 to 2010, the federal criminal caseload increased roughly 50% with a large portion of this increase attributed to the rise in immigration prosecutions. These changes coupled with recent Supreme Court decisions rendering the guidelines advisory have renewed calls for research examining prosecutorial discretion, particularly with respect to the influence of legal and extralegal factors on charging and bargaining decisions. This study utilizes data (2002–2010) from the Federal Justice Statistics Program database housed within the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD). More specifically, the current research examines prosecutorial decisions to decline to charge federal arrestees and to make any changes to the charge from the arresting offense. Results from the multilevel, multivariate models reveal that both extra-legal and legal factors were influential of these decisions. Disaggregated models also revealed considerable variation across different offense types. Finally, districts with higher caseloads had lower odds of a prosecutorial declination and charge change.     

The Courts in a Fragmented Criminal Justice System

The U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice under President Johnson in 1967 outlined a central role for courts in the criminal justice system. That role, however, has been somewhat diminished by the dominance of plea bargaining and the legislative enactment of mandatory minimum sentences that limit judges’ discretion. At the same time, judges have become more involved in specialized courts dealing in cases involving drugs and mental illness. A major topic of concern is the lower courts, which in many areas have changed little since the 1960s Commission. In those places, the traditional adversary process is not operating well, with many defendants pleading guilty unnecessarily in a system that may be designed primarily to collect fees. In violent crime cases, the imposition of capital punishment remains a controversial issue for states that is not likely to be resolved by a new national commission. The central court functions of sentencing and overseeing plea bargains are discussed elsewhere in this volume.     

Sexual Assault Case Outcomes: Disentangling the Overlapping Decisions of Police and Prosecutors

The rape reform movement of the 1970s and 1980s was designed to improve the likelihood of prosecution and conviction in sexual assault cases. However, there is evidence that the attrition rate for sexual assaults reported to the police remains high, and that the locus of case attrition is arresting and charging decisions. In this paper, we analyze police and prosecutorial decision-making in sexual assault cases using quantitative data on sexual assaults reported to the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in 2008. We argue that decisions made by police and prosecutors should not be examined in isolation from one another and that researchers who analyze arrest decisions by examining only cases that are formally cleared by arrest or who focus only on charging decisions that follow the arrest of a suspect may be ignoring important aspects of police and prosecutorial decision-making. This is confirmed by the results of our study, which reveal that a significant proportion of cases in which the police appear to have probable cause to make an arrest do not result in the arrest of the suspect and that a substantial number of cases are rejected for prosecution by the district attorney before an arrest is made. Moreover, the factors that predict arrest and charging vary depending upon the way in which the outcome is operationally defined. These results have a number of important policy implications for police and prosecutors handling sexual assault cases.     

Japan’s Reformed Prosecution Review Commission: Changes,Challenges, and Lessons

This article evaluates how Japan’s Prosecution Review Commission (PRC) has performed since it was reformed in 2009 to allow panels of 11 citizens to override the non-charge decisions of professional prosecutors. In the first eight cases of “mandatory prosecution” that have occurred since 2009, the conviction rate is 20%—far lower than Japan’s usual conviction rate, which exceeds 99%. In the ninth case of mandatory prosecution, three former executives of the Tokyo Electric Power Company have been subject to mandatory prosecution for “professional negligence resulting in death and injury,” for failing to prevent the nuclear meltdowns at Fukushima that were precipitated by the earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011, which killed 18,500 people and caused 200,000 more to flee their homes. As of 2018, the trial of the Tepco executives is still in progress. This evaluation study of prosecutorial reform in one Asian nation suggests that, in principle, prosecutors’ non-charge decisions can be checked and controlled. In practice, however, Japan’s PRC reform has done little to alter the standard operating procedures of professional prosecutors. Further reform of the PRC may be necessary.

     

Plea bargaining: Its pervasiveness on the judicial system

The proposed standards of the American Bar Association and the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals are expressed in an ideal perspective, compared with the reality of plea bargaining use by prosecutors. Fifty-five prosecutors were randomly selected from four countries in two states, and a standardized questionnaire was administered to the subjects. The majority of the sample indicated an essential need for plea bargaining to administratively ensure justice in the criminal courts. The American Bar Association maintains that administrative efficaciousness is a minute consideration in justifying plea bargaining as a legal institution. Standards proposed by the federal Task Force on Courts contend that plea bargaining is an unnecessary adjunct to the formal legal process. Either of the proposed standards would, if adopted, definitely activate participant roles in a formally operated legal environment.     

The Federal/State Criminal Prosecution Nexus: A Case Study in Cooperation and Discretion

Contemporary studies of prosecutorial decision making at the state level are infrequent, and even fewer studies examine the discretionary decisions of federal prosecutors. In addition, virtually no scholarly literature examines the growing overlap between federal and state criminal jurisdiction. This paper advances both theoretical and empirical understandings of the organizational and political contexts in which prosecutorial discretion takes place by exploring the nexus between federal and state criminal jurisdictions. Drawing on interview research in a large urban area with several active federal/state cooperative prosecution programs, we suggest that these cooperative relations open new avenues of discretion for local and federal prosecutors; limit the authority of other court actors, including state judges; and erode the distinctions between federal and local criminal jurisdiction.     

Plea bargaining and appraisals of eyewitness evidence by prosecutors and defense attorneys

A sample of defense attorneys and prosecutors from matched California counties participated in a two-part study. Study 1A reports the results of a survey regarding how influential each of the 17 eyewitness factors is in affecting the accuracy of real eyewitness identifications. Generally, both attorney groups considered all eyewitness factors to be influential; on only 6 of the 17 factors were defense attorneys more likely than prosecutors to provide higher importance ratings. In Study 1B, the attorneys answered questions regarding their willingness to plea bargain after reading each of four scenarios in which (1) same- versus cross-race identification and (2) whether the perpetrator was familiar were experimentally manipulated. Both eyewitness factors influenced plea bargaining decisions, and effects were generally consistent for both attorney groups. Results confirm that plea bargaining decisions at least by defense attorneys are made ‘in the shadow of the trial,’ and that appraisals of the strength of eyewitness evidence play a significant role in these decisions.     

The “Distance Traveled”: Investigating the Downstream Consequences of Charge Reductions for Disparities in Incarceration

Abstract

Relatively little work examines the impact that charging decisions exert on sentencing. We investigate this issue by estimating the “distance traveled” in charge bargaining, or the expected change in the likelihood of incarceration associated with reductions in charges across different stages of prosecution. Using data from New York County, we examine how the probability of incarceration shifts as a result of charging decisions and how this potentially contributes to social inequalities in incarceration. Findings indicate that charge reductions are associated with sizeable decreases in the probability of incarceration, particularly at the plea bargaining stage. On average, the “distance traveled” is substantially greater for female than male defendants and for White compared to Latino and Black defendants, even after accounting for a host of relevant punishment factors. Findings are discussed as they relate to contemporary theoretical perspectives on prosecutorial decision-making and social inequality in punishment.     

Prosecuting 'Gross' Medical Negligence: Manslaughter, Discretion, and the Crown Prosecution Service

This article examines prosecutions of health care professionals for gross negligence manslaughter following fatal errors committed in the course of their work. Unease has long surrounded the use of 'gross negligence' as a form of criminal liability, and particularly as it applies to health care professions operating in high-risk settings. The recent dramatic rise of such prosecutions calls for a closer understanding of the processes by which important prosecutorial decisions are made. In particular, this calls for an investigation into the exercise of discretion by prosecutors in interpreting the loosely defined and contested concept of gross negligence. This article analyses data obtained from a statistical analysis of 'medical manslaughter' cases and also from interviews with crown prosecutors. Discussion of the main findings leads to the conclusion that the offence of gross negligence manslaughter is incapable of any objective and fair measurement and ought to be abolished.     

Displaced discretion under Ohio sentencing guidelines

The argument that curbing judicial sentencing discretion generates more prosecutorial discretion at earlier decision points in case processing received little empirical attention beyond Miethe's (1987) before/after study of the Minnesota guidelines. This article presents an examination of whether Ohio's sentencing reform resulted in significant changes in prosecutorial decisions related to indictment severity, dropped charges, charge reductions, and overall plea bargains. The implementation of determinate sentencing guidelines corresponded with a significant yet modest increase in the likelihood of charge reductions only. Some changes also occurred in the specific effects of various defendant characteristics on some of the outcomes examined, but these changes did not uniformly result in harsher dispositions for defendants facing greater social and economic disadvantage. Similar to Miethe's observation regarding Minnesota's sentencing scheme, any increase in levels of prosecutorial discretion that might have occurred under Ohio's latest scheme had not resulted in substantive extra-legal disparities in case dispositions.     

Opening Pandora’s Box: How Does Defendant Race Influence Plea Bargaining?

Minority overrepresentation in the criminal justice system has long been an important topic of research and policy debate. In New York City, recent changes in the Rockefeller Drug Laws and the controversy around police stop-and-frisk practices have placed an even greater emphasis on the need for studying the possible impact of defendants’ race and ethnicity on criminal justice outcomes. Relatively little contemporary research, though, examines plea-bargaining outcomes. Using unique data on misdemeanor marijuana cases, this study examines the impact of defendants’ race on prosecutors’ decisions to make (a) plea offers for a lesser charge and (b) sentence offers for non-custodial punishments. Preliminary findings indicated that black defendants were less likely to receive reduced charge offers, and both black and Latino defendants were more likely to receive custodial sentence offers. However, these disparities were largely explained by legal factors, evidence, arrest circumstances, and court actor characteristics, though black defendants were still more likely to receive custodial sentence offers after including these controls. No differences were found between white and Asian defendants. Implications for research and prosecutorial practices are discussed.     

Effects of Individual Characteristics on Plea Negotiations Under Sentencing Guidelines

ABSTRACT

Research conducted on the decision points between arrest and sentencing is scarce. There is a need for research to examine processing decisions. This research attempts to fill in the gap of knowledge about case processing decisions by focusing on plea negotiations; specifically, the examination of the effect of individual characteristics on the prosecutor's plea bargaining decisions in a sentencing guideline state by using two dependent variables (negotiated plea vs. a non-negotiated plea and a three category dependent variable simultaneously analyzing negotiated pleas, non-negotiated pleas, and bench or jury trials). The results indicate that race/ethnicity, sex, and age of the offender did not predict the likelihood of receiving a negotiated guilty plea. Using multinomial logistic regression, it was discovered that demographic characteristics were predictors of the decision to negotiate a guilty plea compared to the bench/jury trial conviction. Black offenders were more likely than white offenders to have their case go to trial rather than straight pleading or negotiating a guilty plea.     

Liberating Discretion: The Effect of Rape Myth Factors on Prosecutors’ Decisions to Charge Suspects in Penetrative and Non-Penetrative Sex Offenses

Abstract

In sexual assault cases, prosecutorial charging decisions may be influenced by legal factors like offense seriousness and convictability and extralegal rape myths. We use data on sexual assaults in Los Angeles, to test for the effects of victim behavior, victim credibility, and “real rape” stereotypes on the decision to file charges. We also test the liberation hypothesis, examining whether rape myths influence the charge decision more in less serious nonpenetrative cases then in penetrative cases. Results show that victim credibility and behavior, but not consistency with real rape stereotypes, affect charging decisions, even after controlling for legally relevant factors, and they influence prosecutors’ charging decisions equally in penetrative and nonpenetrative cases. Rape myths also influence the charging decision indirectly via victim cooperation. We conclude that rape myths are incorporated into the criminal justice system’s definition of and response to sexual violence, so cannot be addressed by changing case screening policies.     

Prosecutorial Discretion: An Examination of Substantial Assistance Departures in Federal Crack‐Cocaine and Powder‐Cocaine Cases

Recently there has been a call for research that explores decision‐making at stages prior to sentencing in the criminal justice process. Particularly research is needed under a determinate sentencing system where judicial dispositions are usually restricted by guidelines, which increases the importance of earlier decision‐making stages. As an answer to this call, and in an attempt to build on currents studies on the effects of departures as an intervening mechanism, and a source of unwarranted disparity, this study explores federal sentencing data on offenders convicted of crack‐cocaine and powder‐cocaine offenses. Although decision‐making of all criminal justice actors generally, and prosecutors specifically, has been the subject of much research, studies have yet to resolve the nature and outcome of their “autonomous” discretion. This autonomy becomes especially salient regarding prosecutorial decisions for substantial assistance departures. In deciding who receives a substantial assistance departure, the prosecutor has carte blanche power.     

Effects of offender gender on prosecutorial decision-making

This article addresses the extent to which an offender’s sex and the type of offense influences decisions made by prosecuting attorneys in criminal cases. Prosecutors in one south-eastern state were asked to decide initial charging, plea negotiations, and sentence recommendations in two hypothetical crime scenarios. The first scenario depicted a gender-neutral crime; the second described a traditionally masculine crime. The sex of the offenders was varied in two different versions of the scenarios. The findings reveal that prosecutors treated the male and female offenders differently. In particular, prosecutors recommended harsher sentences for the female offender, regardless of the type of offense. Authors are listed in alphabetical order.     

Guilt Shall Not Escape or Innocence Suffer? The Limits of Plea Bargaining When Defendant Guilt is Uncertain

This article examines optimal prosecutor behavior with respectto plea bargaining when defendant guilt is uncertain. I showthat when jury beliefs and behavior are determined endogenouslyin equilibrium along with defendant and prosecutor behavior,plea bargaining can play only a limited role in managing society'sconflicting desires to maximize punishment of the guilty andminimize punishment of the falsely accused. In particular, whileit can be optimal for prosecutors to use plea bargaining toinduce a large fraction of guilty defendants to voluntarilysort themselves from the innocent, such sorting must come atthe cost of imposing relatively short sentences on such guiltydefendants who accept plea bargains.     

Discretion at the Pre-Trial Stage: A Comparative Study

This study aims to explore the discretion of the police and prosecutors during the pre-trial stage based on six systems of criminal justice: England and Wales, the United States, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea. In criminal proceedings, discretion plays a significant role in supplementing as statutes cannot provide for every circumstance. In particular, at the pre-trial stage, public prosecutors can conclude their cases by exercising considerable discretion. Such discretion differs depending on the jurisdiction. The differences demonstrate distinctive prosecutorial roles. Based upon these findings, I propose that in general, the public prosecution service plays a filtering role. Unlike other jurisdictions, in Korea the prosecutors act as monopolists. However, justice cannot be achieved by the monopoly of one legal actor in the criminal proceedings.