scholarly journals The Immigration Prosecutor and the Judge: Examining the Role of the Judiciary in Prosecutorial Discretion Decisions

Author(s):  
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
Author(s):  
Katalin Ligeti

This chapter focuses on the place of the public prosecutor in common law and civil law jurisdictions. It first describes the institutional positioning of public prosecutors, particularly vis-à-vis the executive power, before discussing their role and powers in regard to the pretrial phase. It then considers the increasing tendency to entrust the public prosecutor with quasi-judicial sanctioning powers in the context of out-of-court procedures (“prosecutorial adjudication”). It also examines the role of specialized law enforcement authorities in the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial functions, coercive measures and the need for judicial authorization, and prosecutorial discretion and alternatives to trial proceedings. Finally, it explains how independence, centralization and decentralization, legality and opportunity of prosecution, and the alternatives to trial proceedings have been translated to the supranational design of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO).


Author(s):  
Brian D. Johnson ◽  
Raquel Hernandez

This article reviews the empirical research literature on plea bargaining in the United States. It starts with an historical overview of the evolution of plea bargaining in the criminal justice system. It describes how the rise in plea bargaining has been coupled with an expansion of prosecutorial power. In particular, it elaborates on the role of modern sentencing reforms in enhancing prosecutorial discretion in plea negotiations. Next, it examines normative perspectives and philosophical arguments regarding the utility of plea bargaining. This includes discussion of how plea bargaining may circumvent the goals of criminal punishment. Lastly, it reviews the empirical state of the research literature on plea bargaining and offers future directions for expanding this work. It concludes with policy recommendations aimed at addressing continuing issues and concerns in the guilty plea process.


Author(s):  
Jenny Roberts

Although violent crime gets the most media, public, and legislative attention in the United States, misdemeanors make up approximately 75 percent of all criminal court cases, with more than 13 million new misdemeanor cases filed each year. This chapter discusses the role of prosecutors in the misdemeanor system. First, it addresses prosecutorial discretion and mass misdemeanor criminalization. Prosecutors, with near-unfettered discretionary power, are characterized as the most powerful actors in criminal cases. Yet often, prosecutors fail to properly exercise their discretion in low-level cases or are completely absent from the charging and sometimes even the adjudicatory processes. This is particularly problematic in misdemeanor cases, where informed prosecutorial decision-making is critical given the enormous volume of arrests and structural and institutional realities that weaken the role of other lower court actors. Proper exercise of discretion is also critical given well-documented racial disparities in the misdemeanor realm and the need to mitigate the myriad disproportionate effects of the ever-growing number of collateral consequences that flow from even a minor criminal record. Second, the chapter examines the misdemeanor prosecutor’s role at key stages: charging, bail, plea bargaining, sentencing, expungement, and post-conviction innocence claims. The chapter draws on examples of prosecutorial practice as well as theoretical and empirical research about prosecutorial discretion. Some recently elected so-called progressive prosecutors have already implemented significant promised changes. Although implementation of such reforms is nascent, time will tell whether a newly attentive electorate and a fresh prosecutorial approach will begin to roll back the extreme overuse and disproportionate impact of misdemeanor prosecutions in the United States.


Author(s):  
Daniel Brice Baker ◽  
Shahidul Hassan

Abstract This article contributes to our understanding of the role of gender in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. We use administrative data from a prosecutor’s office in a large urban county to estimate the direct and interactive effects of defendant and prosecutor gender on accepting initial charges brought by law enforcement officials. After implementing coarsened exact matching, Probit regression results suggest that prosecutors, on average, are more likely to accept charges against male defendants. In scenarios where gender is salient to decision making (i.e., in domestic violence and sexual assault cases), we find mixed evidence regarding whether female prosecutors make decisions differently than male prosecutors, as predicted by the theory of representative bureaucracy. Finally, we find that female prosecutors with higher levels of prosecutorial experience are more likely to accept domestic violence and sexual assault charges against male defendants than both their male counterparts and female prosecutors with limited experience. Our results suggest that female prosecutors reserve their discretion for complex scenarios where organizational routines are less set in stone. Furthermore, female prosecutors with more experience may be more able to identify these scenarios, and are thus more likely to actively represent.


JAMA ◽  
1966 ◽  
Vol 195 (12) ◽  
pp. 1005-1009 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. J. Fernbach
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document