American Prosecutors as Principals and Agents

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.

Author(s):  
David L. Sutton ◽  
Melissa Britts ◽  
Margaret Landman

TELEVISION PROGRAMMES AS LEGAL TEXTS: WHAT LAW AND ORDER TELLS US ABOUT THE AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM In this work, we take the perspective that although a television program is produced for the brief amusement of a mass audience, it can be viewed as having a part in the scholarly investigation of law and justice in our society. The central question we are focussing on is: What does Law & Order programme tell its audience about the American criminal justice system? According to one of the program's official web sites, Law & Order is a "realistic" television series that examines "law and order from a dual perspective." For roughly the first half-hour, the program focuses on two New York Police Department (NYPD) detectives as they "investigate crimes and apprehend law-breakers." Then the scene switches to the criminal courts, where two assistant district attorneys "work within a complicated justice system...


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 1025
Author(s):  
Matthias Olufemi Dada Ojo

Ayelala is a popular deity in the western part of Nigeria. The deity is well known for its efficacy in punishing offenders of law and order when invoked. With 52 participants, this study investigated whether Ayelala should be incorporated into Nigeria Criminal Justice and political Systems. A total of 94% of the participants agreed in one form or the other that the deity is very efficient in punishing offenders of law and order when invoked. For its inclusion in Nigeria Criminal Justice System, 54% wanted it to be included and implemented. The study, therefore, recommended that survey should be conducted in Nigerian society on whether traditional criminal justice system like Ayelala should be included in the Modern Criminal Justice System or not. If the people so desired that it should be included, government should take steps towards the implementation of the decision of the people. Other recommendations are discussed in this paper.


2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-21
Author(s):  
Harini Kav

This paper looks at the criminal case of Deborah Peagler and the California habeas law and explores the effectiveness of legislative changes to domestic battery laws as a mechanism for change in the criminal justice system in regards to its treatment of domestic violence survivors accused of committing a crime against their abuser. It focuses on the androcentric and racialized nature of the criminal justice system and argues that while legislative changes brought about by social movements facilitate opportunities for women like Peagler to pursue just outcomes, they do not counter the gender biases prevalent in the justice system and, alone, are insufficient in improving the treatment of domestic violence survivors in the criminal justice system.


Author(s):  
Robert A. Ferguson

This chapter addresses the question of whether Americans like to punish. The United States clearly punishes more heavily and for longer periods than other countries, with comparable social and political values. One can land in an American prison for life over minor offenses—a punishment not used for serious offenses in Western Europe. The leading comparativist on criminology, James Whitman, argues that a politics of dignity has instilled mercy and mildness in European systems, while leveling impulses, distrust of authority, and too much power in the people is said to have left the United States with a criminal justice system long in degradation and short on mercy.


Author(s):  
Emily Gray ◽  
Phil Mike Jones ◽  
Stephen Farrall

One of the first steps Margaret Thatcher’s government took following their election in 1979 was to introduce legislation that enabled sitting council tenants to buy their council homes. This chapter assesses the legacy of this policy on the experiences of homelessness and contact with the criminal justice system of two cohorts of UK citizens. Using longitudinal studies of people born in 1958 and 1970, the authors explore how policies intended to turn council tenants into property owners, may have also increased the risks of homelessness, and contact with the criminal justice system for others as well as subsequent generations. The authors assess how legislative changes can shape the lives of citizens, and highlight some of the unintended consequences of the ‘right to buy’ policy. Our chapter, therefore is essentially about the investigation of the outcomes of radical system deregulation. Our chapter draws upon concepts derived from life-course studies and historical institutionalist thinking in order to understand in-depth how radical policy changes may shape and alter the lives of ordinary citizens.


Author(s):  
Stuart Don

This chapter analyses the pervasive impact of the Charter on the Canadian criminal justice system. Active judicial interpretation of Charter rights has put in place distinctive constitutional standards of substantive law, including those of fault, and struck down oppressive laws for arbitrariness and overbreadth. Also examined are new standards for police powers to stop, search, detain and interrogate, fair trial rights such as the duty of full Crown disclosure, and for assessing mandatory minimum sentences. This chapter describes and welcomes a robust exclusionary discretion for evidence obtained in violation of the Charter. It is suggested that the Canadian Charter standards are no panacea and are sometimes too weak but that they have often provided a welcome balance to the expedient lure of law-and-order politics.


2020 ◽  
Vol 07 (03) ◽  
pp. 400-420
Author(s):  
I Wayan Aryana

The principles of international law mandate diversion as a model for solving juvenile cases. The diversion model as a resolution model in Indonesia, Philippines, and Thailand is rooted in the traditional culture and local wisdom of the people. Diversion agreement can take form of restitution. This study discusses three issues: (1) diversion in juvenile criminal justice system, (2) restitution in diversion, and (3) comparison of restitution in the Philippines and Thailand. This study employs normative legal approach, which examines the ambiguity of norms of restitution forms. Currently, restitution is interpreted merely as reimbursement for victim. This study collected primary and secondary legal materials collected through literature study. This study employed statutory, legal concept, and comparative law approaches. The focus was on the Philippines and Thailand contexts. The analysis was conducted qualitatively. Diversion is a specialty in the juvenile criminal justice system in which criminal cases committed by children are resolved by deliberation. The result of the diversion agreement can be in the form of restitution as agreed in the deliberation. The Law Number 11 of 2012 on the Juvenile Criminal Justice System recognizes form of restitution. The form is money. It is different from the Philippines and Thailand that formulating a form of restitution in the form of services provided by the perpetrator and/or his family to the victim and/or his family. This form of restitution is based on social realities in which the economic condition of the perpetrator’s family makes it impossible to pay restitution in the form of money. The restitution of work services can be a material for reformulation in the dimension of ius constituendum in Indonesia.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-86
Author(s):  
Darlington Iwarimie-Jaja ◽  
Raimi Lasisi

The place of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) in ensuring and sustaining social order in any country has been long established especially with the understanding that norms, rules, and laws act as social adhesives for society. However, some countries in the developing world seem to be grappling with significant challenges associated with criminal justice delivery as a consequence of the real and perceived inefficiency of the CJS in dealing with deviant issues. This to a large extent tend to undermine social order and by extension the collective conscience of the people. In Nigeria, criminal justice issues have attracted strong theoretical and practical affronts with the dominant perspective being that the poor are often denied justice in favour of the rich with adverse implications for social order. As a result, this paper examined the issue of the CJS in order to show how this affects social order in Nigeria. The paper adopts the content analysis method for data gathering and the qualitative approach to data analysis. Also, the Marxist Political Economy perspective is adopted as the theoretical framework as well as a complementary method of analysis. The paper submits that in a society like Nigeria where criminal justice is significantly defined by the politics of corruption, social order will be largely elusive and in its place, there will be an obvious consistency in criminal activities in the country. The paper recommends among others that the government should strengthen the criminal justice system and provide an enabling environment for it to function effectively if social order is to be achieved in Nigeria.


Author(s):  
Rocky Marbun

Myths in the modern era are things that are considered like truth. It arises through the process of hegemony and dialectical domination by the authority in history. So, myth is a phenomenon of common sense without criticism. The state's presence in the criminal justice process as a grand narrative identified with the interests of victims and society, in general, is common sense without criticism. This study aims to reveal whether the myth of modernity is a representation of victims in the Criminal Justice System. This study uses a normative juridical method based on secondary data with several models of approaches, including conceptual approaches, philosophical approaches, and critical approaches. The result of this research shows the phenomenon of objectification and reification of the people as victims in the Criminal Justice System in Indonesia. Mitos dalam era modern merupakan hal-hal yang diandaikan begitu saja sebagai suatu kebenaran. Hal tersebut tampil melalui proses hegemoni dan dominasi dalam dialektika otoritas dalam sejarah. Sehingga, mitos merupakan suatu fenomena common sense tanpa kritik. Kehadiran negara dalam proses peradilan pidana sebagai narasi tunggal (grand narrative) yang diidentikan dengan kepentingan korban dan masyarakat secara umum, merupakan common sense tanpa kritik. Penelitian ini ditujukan untuk membongkar apakah mitos modernitas tersebut merupakan representasi korban dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif yang berbasis kepada data sekunder dengan beberapa model pendekatan, antara lain pendekatan konseptual, pendekatan filsafat, dan pendekatan kritis. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan adanya fenomena objektivikasi dan reifikasi terhadap masyarakat sebagai korban dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Indonesia.  


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document