Power and intergroup perception between public defenders and district attorneys

1998 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 15-24
Author(s):  
Stephen Michael Garcia ◽  
David L. Rosenhan
2001 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 731-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Garcia ◽  
John M. Darley ◽  
Robert J. Robinson

Author(s):  
Brett Curry ◽  
Banks Miller

The pervasiveness of their influence arguably makes prosecutors the most consequential actors in the American criminal justice system. Armed with discretion over which cases to pursue, what charges to file, and which issue areas to prioritize, prosecutors play a decisive role in determining what progresses from investigation to the courtroom. It is their charge to do justice in each case, but that obligation hardly forecloses the influence of politics on their decisions. Despite their centrality, however, prosecutors and their behavior have failed to garner even a fraction of the attention that scholars have directed toward law enforcement, correctional systems, or judges. The discretion of American prosecutors is theoretically immense; there are few formal constraints upon it. If a federal or state prosecutor declines to pursue a case that has been referred to him or her, that declination decision is essentially immune from judicial review. But these formalisms come with more practical limitations. At the federal level, United States Attorneys are appointed by the president and, therefore, are expected to carry out an administration’s general policy priorities. In the states, most district attorneys answer to the electorate, which imposes its own constraints on a prosecutor’s freedom of action. Chief prosecutors—state and federal—are simultaneously principals to their subordinates and agents of the people or the president. If those considerations were not enough, American prosecutors must be mindful of still other factors. How might their actions today impact their future career paths? What influence might legislative changes, public opinion, or judicial rulings have on how they operate? Scholarship on prosecutors has addressed some of these questions, but we still lack a good understanding of all the ways in which politics infects prosecutorial decision-making. As “progressive prosecutors”—many who are former public defenders—continue to win office, new questions will arise about how far prosecutors can push reform of the criminal justice system. A major looming question is how voters conditioned to law-and-order rhetoric will evaluate the new prosecutors. Some preliminary work shows that non-White prosecutors tend to reduce rates of incarceration, while Republican-affiliated prosecutors increase them.


2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 165-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerrod Brown ◽  
Janina Cich ◽  
Jay Singh

Purpose Persons diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) are more likely to come into contact with the criminal justice system than general population controls. Although previous survey evidence has suggested that federal district attorneys are limited in their knowledge of the psycholegal impairments presented by defendants with this condition, such research has yet to have been conducted with state-specific public defenders. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach The Dillman Total Design Method was used to disseminate an electronic survey to public defenders in Minnesota. The survey included questions designed to measure their knowledge bases on and legal experiences with FASD. Surveys were completed by 135 respondents (nMen=63; nWomen=72) with an average of 16.22 years (SD=11.34) of legal experience. Findings Respondents varied in their knowledge bases on the cognitive impairments, social deficits, and physical complications characteristic of FASD. Less than 20 percent of respondents reported having received training on the psycholegal impairments experienced by individuals diagnosed with FASD from arrest until the start of adjudication, during adjudication, or during incarceration. Over 95 percent of respondents reported that they could benefit from a Continuing Legal Education course on the psycholegal impairments of individuals diagnosed with FASD, and over 90 percent reported that they could benefit from being provided the findings of a screening tool for FASD in their daily practice. Originality/value First survey of state public defenders’ perceptions of FASD.


1998 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
John T. Whitehead

This report is a summary of a survey of Tennessee chief prosecutors (district attorneys general), chief public defenders, and state legislators concerning their attitudes toward capital punishment. Global approval was compared with (1) approval when offered the options of life without parole and (2) life without parole and restitution to the victim's family. Additional items probed approval of capital punishment for specific subpopulations: juvenile, mentally ill, and mentally retarded offenders. Consistent with previous research, support for the death penalty declined when respondents were given the option of life without parole. A concluding note is offered calling for more complete research on the issue.


2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leigh Wilton ◽  
Diana T. Sanchez ◽  
Lisa Giamo

Biracial individuals threaten the distinctiveness of racial groups because they have mixed-race ancestry, but recent findings suggest that exposure to biracial-labeled, racially ambiguous faces may positively influence intergroup perception by reducing essentialist thinking among Whites ( Young, Sanchez, & Wilton, 2013 ). However, biracial exposure may not lead to positive intergroup perceptions for Whites who are highly racially identified and thus motivated to preserve the social distance between racial groups. We exposed Whites to racially ambiguous Asian/White biracial faces and measured the perceived similarity between Asians and Whites. We found that exposure to racially ambiguous, biracial-labeled targets may improve perceptions of intergroup similarity, but only for Whites who are less racially identified. Results are discussed in terms of motivated intergroup perception.


Author(s):  
Janne E Gaub ◽  
Carolyn Naoroz ◽  
Aili Malm

Abstract The research on police body-worn cameras (BWCs) has rapidly expanded to evaluate the technology’s impact on a range of police outcomes. Far fewer studies have addressed the various effects on downstream criminal justice actors, and those that do have focused almost entirely on prosecutors. Thus, public defenders have remained on the periphery of the police BWC discussion, despite playing an important role as an end-user of the technology. This study draws on qualitative data from focus groups with public defenders in the Commonwealth of Virginia to discuss the perception of BWCs as neutral observers in a police–citizen encounter. We then provide implications and recommend avenues for future research.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh McGovern ◽  
Marte Otten

Bayesian processing has become a popular framework by which to understand cognitive processes. However, relatively little has been done to understand how Bayesian processing in the brain can be applied to understanding intergroup cognition. We assess how categorization and evaluation processes unfold based on priors about the ethnic outgroup being perceived. We then consider how the precision of prior knowledge about groups differentially influence perception depending on how the information about that group was learned affects the way in which it is recalled. Finally, we evaluate the mechanisms of how humans learn information about other ethnic groups and assess how the method of learning influences future intergroup perception. We suggest that a predictive processing framework for assessing prejudice could help accounting for seemingly disparate findings on intergroup bias from social neuroscience, social psychology, and evolutionary psychology. Such an integration has important implications for future research on prejudice at the interpersonal, intergroup, and societal levels.


Author(s):  
Lauren-Brooke Eisen ◽  
Miriam Aroni Krinsky

Local prosecutors are responsible for 95 percent of criminal cases in the United States—their charging decisions holding enormous influence over the number of people incarcerated and the length of sentences served. Performance metrics are a tool that can align the vision of elected prosecutors with the tangible actions of their offices’ line attorneys. The right metrics can provide clarity to individual line attorneys around the mission of the office and the goals of their job. Historically, however, prosecutor offices have relied on evaluation metrics that incentivize individual attorneys to prioritize more punitive responses and volume-driven activity—such as tracking the number of cases processed, indictments, guilty pleas, convictions, and sentence lengths. Under these past approaches, funding, budgeting, and promotional decisions are frequently linked to regressive measures that fail to account for just results. As more Americans have embraced the need to end mass incarceration, a new wave of reform-minded district attorneys have won elections. To ensure they are accountable to the voters who elected them into office and achieve the changes they championed, they must align measures of success with new priorities for their offices. New performance metrics predicated on the goals of reducing incarceration and enhancing fairness can shrink prison and jail populations, while improving public trust and promoting healthier and safer communities. The authors propose a new set of metrics for elected prosecutors to consider in designing performance evaluations, both for their offices and for individual attorneys. The authors also suggest that for these new performance measures to effectively drive decarceration practices, they must be coupled with careful, thoughtful implementation and critical data-management infrastructure.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document