Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:09 pm
Time: 9:09 pm
Results for prosecutors
39 results foundAuthor: Troutman, David R. Title: Prosecutor's Comprehensive Gang Response Model Summary: The comprehensive gang response model is designed to help prosecutors and allied professionals design and implement gang initiatives that focus on the specific needs to individual jurisdictions. Drawing on the experiences of experts from various disciplines across the country and available research on what works in gang prevention, intervention, and suppression. Details: Alexandria, VA: National District Attorneys Association, American Prosecutors Research Institute, 2007 Source: Interest Resource: Accessed May 30, 2018 at: https://www.ndaa.org/pdf/pub_prosecutors_comprehensive_gang_response_model_07.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: https://www.ndaa.org/pdf/pub_prosecutors_comprehensive_gang_response_model_07.pdf Shelf Number: 116667 Keywords: Criminal Justice AdministrationGang PreventionGang SuppressionGangsProsecutors |
Author: Robertson, Robyn Title: National Survey of Crown Prosecutors and Defence Counsel on Impaired Driving Summary: The purpose of this study was to survey a sample of Crown prosecutors and defence counsel to obtain contemporary information pertaining to the prosecution of impaired driving cases; more specifically, to identify problems that impede effective and efficient prosecution and to determine how these problems can be overcome. The survey was designed to gauge the attitudes, experiences, and perceptions of lawyers with regard to the legal system vis-a-vis alcohol impaired driving in Canada. Details: Ottawa: Traffic Injury Research Foundation, 2009 Source: Year: 2009 Country: Canada URL: Shelf Number: 115544 Keywords: Defence AttorneysDriving Under the InfluenceProsecutors |
Author: Mossman, Elaine Title: Responding to Sexual Violence: Environmental Scan of New Zealand Agencies Summary: This report presents the findings of an environmental scan of agencies and key informants that respond to victim/survivors of sexual violence. The objectives of the environmental scan were to identify key informants' views on: factors influencing victim/survivors' access to the criminal justice system and non-criminal justice services; victim services' capacity to meet victim/survivors' needs, including gaps in services; victim services' views on what works to promote recovery and resilience; the impact of location on victim/survivors' ability to disclose sexual violence, particularly in respect of the level of services available locally, and have their needs met; police and prosecutors' views on attrition of recorded sexual violation offences and the effect of systemic, organizational and other contextual factors on investigating and prosecuting sexual violence offences. Details: Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Ministry of Women's Affairs, 2009 Source: Crime and Justice Research Center, Victoria University of Wellington Year: 2009 Country: New Zealand URL: Shelf Number: 117391 Keywords: Criminal Case ProcessingProsecutorsSexual ViolenceVictims |
Author: National Youth Gang Center Title: Gang Prosecution Manual Summary: This publication was brings together information on the basics of gang crime prosecution at the local level. It is a workbook designed to help local prosecutors and investigators visualize and prepare for every step of a gang-related crime prosecution, from the initial crime scene investigation to preparing and presenting the case and, finally, sentencing issues specific to gang cases. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2009. 116p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117561 Keywords: Case ProcessingGangsInvestigative TechniquesProsecution of GangsProsecutorsSentencing |
Author: Wyckoff, Laura Title: Problem Solving and Partnerships in Prosecution: A Process Evaluation of Community Prosecution in Two Maryland State's Attorney's Offices Summary: The University of Maryland's Institute for Governmental Service and Research has been reviewing the processes of community and traditional prosecution in two Maryland counties. Through individual interviews and survey responses from State's Attorney's Office staff, local police departments and community organizations, the researchers have gathered data on the daily operations, goals, and collaborative relationships created by both community prosecution and traditional prosecution units, with special focus on cases of gun violence. The research found that problem solving is highly regarded by both traditional and community prosecutors. However, the offices are only beginning to achieve a problem-solving focus. Prosecutors have formed useful partnerships that may help lead to further problem-solving strategies as community prosecution units continue to develop and gain experience. The report concludes with recommendations for further areas of development and future outcome evaluations of community prosecution. Details: College Park, MD: Institute for Governmental Service and Research, University of Maryland, 2009. 97p., app. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119158 Keywords: PartnershipsProblem-SolvingProsecution (Maryland)Prosecutors |
Author: Ridolfi, Kathleen M. Title: Preventable Error: A Report on Prosecutorial Misconduct in California 1997-2009 Summary: Preventable Error: A Report on Prosecutorial Misconduct in California 1997-2009, the inaugural study of the Veritas Initiative focuses on this extremely critical issue. The most comprehensive statewide study ever undertaken on the misconduct of public prosecutors in state and federal courts, the authors examine over 4,000 cases in California during the period from 1997 to 2009 in which prosecutorial misconduct was alleged. Research determined extensive and systemic failures on the part of the justice system in meeting its obligations. Findings include: Courts found prosecutors committed misconduct in nearly 700 cases and only six prosecutors were publicly disciplined by the California State Bar. The study also revealed that judges often failed to report misconduct to the State Bar despite having a legal obligation to do so. Details: Santa Clara, CA: Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University School of Law, 2010. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: A VERITAS Initiative Report: Accessed October 7, 2010 at: http://www.veritasinitiative.org/downloads/ProsecutorialMisconduct_Exec_Sum.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.veritasinitiative.org/downloads/ProsecutorialMisconduct_Exec_Sum.pdf Shelf Number: 119876 Keywords: CourtsProsecutorial MisconductProsecutors |
Author: Ingram, Matthew C. Title: Justiciabarómetro: Survey of Judges, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders in Nine Mexican States Summary: The Justiciabarómetro: Judicial Survey is a timely study of the judges, prosecutors, and public defenders that operate Mexico’s criminal justice system. The study’s results shed new light on both the current state of the administration of justice in Mexico and the sources of support for and resistance to the sweeping judicial reforms initiated by the administration of Mexican President Felipe Calderón in 2008. Among the key findings are the following: • General satisfaction with compensation, but frustration with workload varies: Judges, prosecutors, and public defenders appear to be generally satisfied with the levels of compensation they receive, though frustration with salary and workload vary by state. • Experience and merit drives professional advancement, but some see politics: Most respondents agreed that experience and training are a primary basis for employment and promotion, a significant portion of respondents feel that political contacts also play a role. • Despite respect for legality, some tolerance of unlawful behavior for justice: Regarding lawful behavior, there was widespread agreement that “illegal conduct” is unacceptable, even if no one gets hurt. However, one in four respondents —28.2%— were willing to tolerate occasional illegalities in the pursuit of justice. • Judges and defenders tend to see prosecutors as lacking in competency and integrity: While all respondents tended to have a high opinion of the professional competency and integrity of judges and public defenders, prosecutors were viewed as less competent and trustworthy by their colleagues in other professions. • Public defenders are more critical of procedure efficiency and perceive more violations of due process than judges and prosecutors: There were significant differences judges and prosecutors, on the one hand, and public defenders, on the other regarding the efficiency of the criminal justice system. Also, judges and prosecutors tend to believe that violations of due process —such as forced confessions— are very rare or never used, while public defenders are much more likely to disagree. • New judicial reforms seen by some ineffective, a result of foreign influence, and unlikely to reduce crime. Respondents were split on the effectiveness and efficiency of Mexico’s traditional criminal justice system, on whether that system was deliberately discredited to make way for the 2008 judicial reform, on whether foreign interests were behind the new judicial system, and whether judicial reform will reduce criminality. • Even so, new criminal procedures are generally well regarded, especially in states still awaiting reform. Still, the provisions included in the 2008 reforms —introducing oral, adversarial criminal procedures— were well regarded, particularly in states where they had not yet taken effect; the most significant reservations tended to register among respondents from states that had already adopted the reforms for some time. Many respondents are optimistic that it will improve efficiency and reduce corruption in the judicial system. Details: San Diego: Justice in Mexico Project, University of San Diego Trans-Border Institute, 2011. 136p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 27, 2011 at: http://justiceinmexico.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/justiciabarometro-judicial-survey.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Mexico URL: http://justiceinmexico.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/justiciabarometro-judicial-survey.pdf Shelf Number: 121865 Keywords: Administration of JusticeCorruptionCourtsCriminal Justice Systems (Mexico)JudgesProsecutorsPublic Defenders |
Author: Ingram, Matthew C. Title: Assessing Mexico's Judicial Reform: Views of Judges, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders Summary: Assessing Judicial Reform in Mexico highlights the findings of a recent Justiciabarómetro survey of 276 judges, prosecutors, and public defenders working in Mexico’s criminal justice system from October to December 2010. The full report is available at www. justiceinmexico.org. This special report summarizes respondants’ attitudes regarding the workings of the Mexican criminal justice system, as well as the sweeping judicial reforms approved by Mexico’s Congress in 2008. Among the key findings highlighted in this report are the following: • Frustration with workload varies by state and profession: Judges, prosecutors, and public defenders appear to be generally satisfied with the levels of compensation they receive, though frustration with salary and workload vary by state. • General support for the traditional Mexican legal system remains strong: More than half of the respondents —especially judges— indicated that Mexico’s traditional inquisitorial system was both efficient and effective, and at least a third feel that the traditional system was disparaged by a deliberate, negative campaign designed to promote a shift to the new adversarial system. • Public defenders are more critical of the traditional system than others: There were significant differences between judges and prosecutors, on the one hand, and public defenders, on the other, regarding the efficiency of the criminal justice system. Also, judges and prosecutors tend to believe that violations of due process —such as forced confessions— are very rare or never used, while public defenders are more likely to strongly disagree. • There is significant skepticism about recent judicial reforms. Our findings suggest that there lingering concerns about reform efforts, above all among those who are currently attempting to work within the new oral, adversarial system. Respondents were split on whether judicial reform will reduce criminality, and a significant proportion feel that the reforms were the result of pressure by foreign governments and organizations. • Even so, there is hope that recent reforms will improve the justice system. Despite the concerns we find, the provisions included in the 2008 reforms —introducing oral, adversarial criminal procedures— were generally well regarded, particularly in states where they had not yet taken effect. While there are significant reservations in states that have already adopted the reforms for some time, many respondents are optimistic that they will ultimately help to improve efficiency and reduce corruption in the judicial system. Details: San Diego: Justice in Mexico Project, University of San Diego Trans-Border Institute, 2011. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 27, 2011 at: http://justiceinmexico.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/tbi-assessing-judicial-reform1.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Mexico URL: http://justiceinmexico.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/tbi-assessing-judicial-reform1.pdf Shelf Number: 121866 Keywords: Administration of JusticeCorruptionCourtsCriminal Justice Systems (Mexico)JudgesJudicial ReformProsecutorsPublic Defenders |
Author: Budzilowicz, Lisa M. Title: Who's on First? Challenges Facing Prosecutors and Financial Institutions in Responding to Identity Theft Summary: Prosecutors and law enforcement struggle with how to approach victimized financial institutions and their consumers. Prosecutors rely on prompt reporting of crime and they need to access financial institutions' information, such as account data, video evidence, and witness statements, as evidence of the crimes. This report examines how prosecutors and financial institutions can work together to prevent, investigate, and prosecution identity theft. Details: Alexandria, VA: National District Attorneys Association, American Prosecutors Research Institute, 2007. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Special Topics Series: Accessed January 13, 2012 at: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/pub_whos_on_first_07.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/pub_whos_on_first_07.pdf Shelf Number: 123607 Keywords: Consumer FraudCybercrimeFinancial CrimesIdentity TheftProsecutors |
Author: Rehavi, M. Marit Title: Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Charging and Its Sentencing Consequences Summary: This paper assesses the extent to which the large disparities in sentencing outcomes between black and white defendants can be explained by disparities in prosecutors' initial choice of charges, a critical stage overlooked by existing studies of sentencing disparities. To analyze charging, we pair newly constructed measures of charge severity with a newly linked dataset that traces federal cases from the arrest through sentencing. We find that black arrestees, especially black males, face significantly more severe charges conditional on arrest offense and other observed characteristics. The disparities in the use of charges that carry mandatory minimum sentences are particularly striking. These disparities appear to be major drivers of sentencing disparity. Black males face significantly longer sentences than white males do, on average and at almost every decile of the sentence-length distribution, even after conditioning on arrest offense, criminal history, district, and age. However, the addition of controls for initial charges renders most of these disparities insignificant. Indeed, the otherwise-unexplained racial disparities at the mean and at most of the deciles can be almost entirely explained by disparities in a single prosecutorial decision: whether to file a charge carrying a mandatory minimum sentence. Details: Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Law School, 2012. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: U of Michigan Law & Econ, Empirical Legal Studies Center Paper No. 12-002: Accessed March 2, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1985377 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1985377 Shelf Number: 124348 Keywords: ProsecutionProsecutorial DiscretionProsecutorsPunishmentRacial DisparitiesSentencing (U.S.) |
Author: Graham, Kyle Title: Crimes, Widgets, and Plea Bargaining: An Analysis of Charge Content, Pleas, and Trials Summary: This article considers how the composition and gravamen of a charged crime can affect the parties’ willingness and ability to engage in plea bargaining. Most of the prevailing descriptions of plea bargaining ignore or discount the importance of charge content in plea negotiations. In fact, one leading commentator has likened crimes to widgets insofar as plea bargaining is concerned. In developing its counter-thesis, this article reviews seven years of federal conviction data, focusing on those crimes that produce the most and fewest trials relative to how often they are alleged; the most and fewest acquittals at trial; and the most and fewest plea bargains that involve a substantial alteration in charges. Overall, the data demonstrate that the character of and circumstances that surround a particular offense can catalyze or frustrate plea bargaining. Similar information to that utilized in and gleaned from this study, it is also argued, can and should be considered in connection with the adoption of new crimes and the re-evaluation of existing offenses. This information would provide legislatures with insight into how a proposed crime is likely to be utilized, and how current crimes are being used. Details: Unpublished, 2012. 58p. California Law Review, Forthicoming. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2012 at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2004194 Year: 0 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2004194 Shelf Number: 124611 Keywords: ConvictionsLegislationPlea BargainingProsecutorial DiscretionProsecutorsTrials |
Author: Pezdek, Kathy Title: A Preliminary Study of How Plea Bargaining Decisions by Prosecution and Defense Attorneys Are Affected by Eyewitness Factors Summary: This preliminary study attempted to assess how appraisals of the strength of eyewitness evidence affect plea bargaining decisions by prosecutors and defense attorneys. A sample of 93 defense attorneys and 46 prosecutors from matched counties in California participated. The attorneys had extensive experience practicing law and trying felony criminal cases in Superior Court. The attorneys were presented four scenarios in which two specific eyewitness factors – (a) same- versus cross-race identification and (b) prior contact or not – were experimentally manipulated in a factorial design. After reading each scenario, they were asked five questions regarding whether they would plea bargain the case, the lowest/highest plea bargain they would offer/accept, and their estimate of the probability that the defendant was guilty and the probability that they would win the case if it went to trial. This study attempted to experimentally assess how these typical decisions regarding plea bargaining are influenced by variations in the strength of two eyewitness factors, and the whether this pattern of results differs for prosecutors versus defense attorneys. Details: Claremont Graduate University, 2012. 46p. Source: Final Technical Report: Internet Resource: Accessed April 24, 2012 at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238136.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238136.pdf Shelf Number: 125057 Keywords: Criminal EvidenceCriminal ProceedingsDefense AttorneysEyewitness IdentificationPlea BargainingProsecutors |
Author: Redpath, Jean Title: Failing to Prosecute? Assessing the State of the National Prosecuting Authority in South Africa Summary: The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is pivotal not only in the criminal justice system, but also in the proper functioning of South Africa’s democracy. This monograph focuses on the independence, accountability and performance of the NPA in relation to its core function of prosecution. The monograph finds that the prosecutorial decision to decline to prosecute is both specifically and systematically exercised to such an extent that proportionally fewer cases are placed on the court roll each year and fewer still are brought to trial. The best indication of this is that the number of verdicts and the number of persons sentenced to prison show a general decline. It concludes that this tendency to decline to prosecute is currently the central malaise affecting the NPA. In South African law, where a prima facie case exists, a duty to prosecute arises unless a compelling reason exists to decline to prosecute. Under a constitutional order such as the one that pertains in South Africa, the exercise of all public power is constrained by the principle of legality and the provisions of the Constitution. Yet the NPA has maintained that it has an unfettered discretion not to prosecute, which discretion is not generally subject to judicial review. The monograph finds no evidence that the tendency to decline to prosecute is a function of lack of resources. Prosecutor and staff numbers have steadily increased since the establishment of the NPA, but efficiency per prosecutor in terms of cases prosecuted has declined. Nor does analysis of the evidence support the idea that the failure to prosecute is a function of pressure beyond the optimal level in terms of cases referred by the South African Police Service (SAPS). On the contrary, the evidence suggests that the NPA is operating at below optimal load. Various legislative and other impediments affecting its performance are identified. It concludes that the primary factor affecting the credibility and performance of the NPA is the inappropriate exercise of the discretion not to prosecute, most powerfully evident in the hands of the national director, who has a constitutionally sanctioned power of veto over the decisions of prosecutors under him. This veto has been exercised (or not exercised) with consequences that continue to cast doubt on the independence and impartiality of the NPA. This in turn affects internal morale and external public confidence. The monograph recommends an overhaul of prosecutorial policy in order appropriately to delineate the circumstances under which the discretion to decline to prosecute should be exercised. Measures to assist the speedy resolution of cases should be mandated by Parliament and innovative means of increasing the number of appropriate resolutions of cases should be introduced. Performance reporting should determine optimal prosecutor workloads and there should be a focus on professional development to achieve the optimal throughput of cases. Details: Pretoria, South Africa:Institute for Security Studies, 2012. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: ISS Monograph Number 186: Accessed July 9, 2012 at: http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/Mono186Full.pdf Year: 2012 Country: South Africa URL: http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/Mono186Full.pdf Shelf Number: 125514 Keywords: CourtsProsecution (South Africa)Prosecutors |
Author: Charles, Corrine Title: Special Measures for Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses: Research Exploring the Decisions and Actions Taken by Prosecutors in a Sample of CPS Case Files Summary: Victims and witnesses play a central role in the prosecution process. The CPS relies on the evidence of victims and witnesses to deliver successful prosecutions and ensure justice is done. Some victims and witnesses may have particular difficulties attending court and giving evidence due to their age, personal circumstances, fear of intimidation or because of their particular needs. This was recognised in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (‘YJCEA 1999’), which provides a range of special measures which the court can direct in order to assist ‘vulnerable and intimidated’ witnesses to give their best evidence in court. The measures include: § Giving evidence behind a screen positioned around the witness box; § Giving evidence by a live TV link from a room outside the courtroom; § Giving evidence in private by clearing the courtroom of members of the public; § Removal of wigs and gowns by judges and lawyers; § Use of video-recorded interviews as evidence in chief; § Examination of the witness through a Registered Intermediary; and § The provision of aids to communication such as through a computer or other device to communicate when giving evidence. Vulnerable witnesses are defined by the YJCEA 1999 as all child witnesses (under 18) and any witness whose quality of evidence is likely to be diminished because they are suffering from a mental disorder (as defined by the Mental Health Act 1983); have a significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning (including learning disability); or have a physical disability or disorder. Intimidated witnesses are defined as those suffering from fear or distress in relation to testifying in the case. Although a vulnerable or intimidated witness might be eligible for special measures, the measures will not automatically be available at the trial. An application for special measures must be made to the court by a prosecutor, on behalf of the witness, and must be made within set time limitations. While a number of positive impacts for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses have been demonstrated since the introduction of special measures, the research evidence also highlights a number of areas where special measures do not work as well as they might. Recurrent themes that are pertinent to the role of the prosecutor in seeking special measures include: § Vulnerable and intimidated witnesses are not always identified at the earliest opportunity; § Victim and witness needs are not always considered by the CPS at the charging stage; § Where a vulnerable or intimidated witness has been identified in a case, the police and the CPS rarely hold an ‘early special measures discussion’ to assist case progression; § Prosecutors infrequently hold ‘special measures meetings’ with vulnerable or intimidated witnesses to discuss matters; and § Applications for special measures are often made late. Evidently, there are some concerns regarding the effective use of special measures. In this context, the present research was commissioned to provide further insight into a number of these issues; focusing in particular on areas where the CPS has a direct role and responsibility. The research aimed to identify aspects for improvement or greater effectiveness for prosecutors in relation to their role in the special measures process. It focused on three areas of concern: § Identification of the need for special measures; § Communication with the police and with witnesses regarding special measures; and § The timeliness of special measures applications. The research also looked at the quality of special measures applications and whether the measure(s) sought were appropriate to the needs of witnesses. The outcomes of applications were also considered to understand the reasons why any had not been granted by the court. Details: London: Crown Prosecution Services, 2012. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 12, 2012 at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/cps_research_on_special_measures.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/cps_research_on_special_measures.pdf Shelf Number: 126303 Keywords: CourtsProsecutorsVictims of CrimesWitness IntimidationWitnesses (U.K.) |
Author: Henning, Kristin N. Title: Criminalizing Normal Adolescent Behavior in Communities of Color: The Role of Prosecutors in Juvenile Justice Reform Summary: There is little dispute that racial disparities pervade the contemporary American juvenile justice system. The persistent overrepresentation of youth of color in the system suggests that scientifically supported notions of diminished culpability of youth are not applied consistently across races. Drawing from recent studies on implicit bias and the impact of race on perceptions of adolescent culpability, Professor Henning contends that contemporary narratives portraying black and Hispanic youth as dangerous and irredeemable lead prosecutors to disproportionately reject youth as a mitigating factor for their behavior. Although racial disparities begin at arrest and persist through every stage of the juvenile justice process, this Article focuses specifically on the unique opportunity and obligation that prosecutors have to address those disparities at the charging phase of the juvenile case. Professor Henning implores juvenile prosecutors to resist external pressures to respond punitively and symbolically to exaggerated perceptions of threat by youth of color and envisions a path toward structured decision making at the charging phase that is informed by research in adolescent development, challenges distorted notions of race and maturity, and holds prosecutors accountable for equitable decision making across race. While fully embracing legitimate prosecutorial concerns about victims’ rights and public safety, Professor Henning frames the charging decision as one requiring fairness, equity, and efficacy. Fairness requires that prosecutors evaluate juvenile culpability in light of the now well-documented features of adolescent offending. Equity demands an impartial application of the developmental research to all youth, regardless of race and socioeconomic status. Efficacy asks prosecutors to rely on scientifically validated best practices for ensuring positive youth development and achieving public safety. Thus, even when neighborhood effects and social structures produce opportunities for more serious and more frequent crime among youth of color, prosecutors have a duty to evaluate that behavior in light of the current developmental research and respond to that conduct with the same developmentally appropriate options that are so often available to white youth. As the gatekeepers of juvenile court jurisdiction, prosecutors should work with developmental experts, school officials, and other community representatives to develop and publish juvenile charging standards that reflect these goals. To increase transparency and encourage buy-in from the public, Professor Henning recommends that prosecutors track charging decisions according to race and geographic neighborhood and provide community representatives and other stakeholders with an opportunity to review those decisions for disparate impact. Finally, to ensure that communities of color are able to respond to adolescent offending without state intervention, Professor Henning contemplates a more expansive role for prosecutors who will engage and encourage school officials and community representatives to identify and develop adequate community-based, adolescent-appropriate alternatives to prosecution. Details: Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 2013. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 12-117: Accessed September 21, 2012 at: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2026&context=facpub Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2026&context=facpub Shelf Number: 126399 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)ProsecutorsRacial Disparities |
Author: American Prosecutor's Research Institute Title: A Local Prosecutor's Guide for Responding to Hate Crimes Summary: The United States has long been a “melting pot” society, to which people of different ethnic groups and races, from many diverse cultures and countries, have come. They and their children have become Americans, to form this unique and unified nation. Yet throughout our history these distinctions have fostered bias, prejudice, and hatred by some people— manifested in the form of harassment, intimidation, and bias-motivated crimes. Bias- or hate-motivated incidents and crimes can have a serious impact not only on the victim but also on those who share his or her characteristics because they have been singled out as a result of inherent characteristics and robbed of self-esteem. The deep psychological impact of hate crimes causes terror among victims and victimized groups, distrust of the criminal justice system and its ability to protect against hate crimes, and the potential for retaliatory crimes against the offender or the group the offender represents. Criminologically, hate crimes are regarded by some as a more severe offense than non bias-motivated offenses. Compared to other crimes in general, bias-motivated crimes are more likely to: • Be directed against persons as opposed to property; • Involve injury to victims; • Involve multiple offenders; • Involve serial victimizations; and • Go unsolved. For these reasons, hate crimes must be addressed in a manner that takes into account the seriousness of the offenses and their impact on victims/victimized groups and that serves to stop biased attitudes and beliefs from escalating into crimes. Details: Alexandria, VA: APRI, 2003. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2012 at: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/hate_crimes.pdf Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/hate_crimes.pdf Shelf Number: 126474 Keywords: Bias-Motivated CrimesHate CrimesProsecutionProsecutors |
Author: Frederick, Bruce Title: The Anatomy of Discretion: An Analysis Prosecutorial Decision Making -- Technical Report Summary: Prosecuting attorneys enjoy exceptionally broad discretion in making decisions that influence criminal case outcomes. They make pivotal decisions throughout the life of a case with little public or judicial scrutiny. With support from the National Institute of Justice, the Vera Institute of Justice undertook research to better understand how prosecutors make decisions. Vera researchers combined statistical analyses with qualitative analyses, examining initial case screening and charging decisions, plea offers, sentence recommendations, and post-filing dismissals for multiple offense types in two moderately large prosecutors' offices. In addition to a technical report, the study produced a summary report and four podcasts. Details: Unpublished report to the U.S. Department of Justice, 2012. 429p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2013 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/240334.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/240334.pdf Shelf Number: 131650 Keywords: Prosecutorial Discretion (U.S.)Prosecutors |
Author: Giblin, Matthew J. Title: Understanding Influence Across Justice Agencies: The Spread of "Community Reforms" from Law Enforcement to Prosecutor Summary: Within the last few decades, police departments and prosecutors' offices innovated with new policies and practices, particularly those stressing the community (i.e., community policing, community prosecution). Although organizational innovation has been empirically researched within the discipline of criminal justice, most of these studies focused on the police in isolation from the other components of the criminal justice system. These valuable studies have identified several factors that are associated with innovation including those both internal and external to organizations, but researchers have rarely considered the influence of the policies and practices of other criminal justice agencies. Police and prosecutors, even though interconnected and part of the same system, are studied individually and the cross-component effects of other agencies within the criminal justice system have not received much attention in the literature. This study explores the innovation of community prosecution using organizational predictors typically associated with innovation while also including measures of community policing within the jurisdiction of the prosecutors' offices. Community policing practices of the agencies within the jurisdiction are potentially powerful influences on community prosecution. Using data from the 2001 and 2005 waves of the National Prosecutors Survey and the 2000 and 2003 waves of the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics survey, analyses show that community reforms are not connected across system components. Several possible explanations are offered to account for these findings. Details: Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2014. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 19, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/245945.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/245945.pdf Shelf Number: 132523 Keywords: Community JusticeCommunity PolicingCommunity ProsecutionCourt ReformPartnershipsProsecutors |
Author: Sideman, Olivia Title: Prosecution and Racial Justice in New York County - Partnership Report Summary: The number of blacks and Latinos involved in the criminal justice system is disproportionately large compared to their numbers in the general population. This phenomenon, known as minority overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, has attracted the attention and concern of researchers, policymakers, and advocates nationwide. Yet attempts to understand the factors contributing to this disproportion historically have been limited by some inherent aspects of the justice system structure. Specifically, the system grants prosecutors broad, largely unchecked, and virtually unreviewable discretion in filing, changing, or reducing charges, plea bargaining, and making sentencing recommendations. Despite the vast influence of prosecutors in the criminal justice system, there is little existing research that adequately examines the extent to which prosecutors may contribute to unwarranted racial and ethnic disparities. Researchers rarely get access to the data necessary to investigate the relationship between race or ethnicity and prosecutorial outcomes; indeed, most jurisdictions do not systematically capture this information. When researchers are able to use available data, they typically examine the data in isolation from prosecutorial practices. The results are of relatively little use to prosecutors concerned with developing a more deliberate approach to the exercise of discretion within their offices and with ensuring the equitable treatment of defendants. With an interest in addressing this gap in the research and providing practical findings and evidence-based technical assistance, the Prosecution and Racial Justice Program (PRJ) of the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) has partnered with a number of district attorneys' (DAs') offices around the country, using a unique researcher-practitioner model. This report describes Vera's most recent partnership, with the New York County District Attorney's Office (DANY), which was funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). The partnership allowed Vera to place two-to-three researchers, depending on the phase of the project, at DANY for 20 months to work closely with DANY staff and analyze felony and misdemeanor cases disposed in 2010 and 2011. The study began in January 2012. It aimed to explore the influence of defendants' race and ethnicity on case acceptance for prosecution; detention status; plea offers to a lesser charge and custodial punishment offers; case dismissals; sentencing; and charge dynamics while considering a host of other factors influencing prosecutorial decision making (e.g., prior record or charge seriousness). The project involved: (1) evaluating and analyzing existing administrative data; (2) conducting prosecutorial semi-structured interviews to better understand case processing and data limitations; (3) collecting additional data from a sample of 2,409 case files; (4) hosting meetings to discuss research findings and their policy implications; and (5) disseminating findings through reports, peer-reviewed publications, and conference presentations. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2014. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 28, 2014 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/race-and-prosecution-manhattan-partnership.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/race-and-prosecution-manhattan-partnership.pdf Shelf Number: 133152 Keywords: Case ProcessingEthnic DisparitiesProsecution (New York)Prosecutorial Decision-MakingProsecutorial DiscretionProsecutorsRacial Disparities |
Author: McClure, David Title: Developing an Evidence-Base for the Understanding and Prevention of Dog Fighting Crimes Summary: The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (APA) is excited to share with you our next Prosecutor's Report: Developing an Evidence-Base for the Understanding and Prevention of Dog Fighting Crimes. APA has developed this series of publications to provide knowledge, insight and examples of innovative practices which are creating safer communities. Our goal is to provide prosecutors with the requisite skills to strengthen links between the criminal justice system and the community while promoting partnership building and encouraging problem-solving strategies. APA has published this most recent Prosecutor's Report in partnership with the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University in order to provide an extensive overview of dog fighting so that criminal justice practitioners may use this monograph to develop individual strategies to reduce this violent crime. This monograph includes the pertinent research, and considers the most promising avenues for successfully preventing, responding to and prosecuting dog fighting. Dog fighting may be used to facilitate other serious crimes and perpetrators of cruelty to animals are significantly more likely to commit violent crimes against humans. In many cases the perpetrators of this vicious crime are using animal brutality to send a signal to the community of the violence they are capable of perpetrating if their criminal actions are reported to the authorities. Many participants in dog fighting are members of criminal street gangs and criminal activity involving guns, drugs and gambling often occurs in and around fights. Understanding and preventing dog fighting can provide a valuable tool for prosecutors, investigators and our community partners. Details: Washington, DC: Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, 2011. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2014 at: http://www.apainc.org/files/DDF/Dog%20Fighting%20Monograph%20APA%20Format%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.apainc.org/files/DDF/Dog%20Fighting%20Monograph%20APA%20Format%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 134010 Keywords: Animal CrueltyDog FightingDogsGangsProsecutors |
Author: Center for Prosecutor Integrity Title: Conviction Integrity Units: Vanguard of Criminal Justice Reform Summary: January 4, 1989 marked a watershed moment in the history of the American criminal justice system. On that day, Virginia governor Gerald L. Baliles issued a pardon for David Vasquez. Vasquez was released from prison that evening. Vasquez had been charged with the 1984 rape and murder of Carolyn Hamm, a 32-year-old lawyer. Vasquez's blood did not match the semen found on the victim's body and his shoes did not conform to the footprints found at the crime scene. Nonetheless, his disjointed confession sufficed to convince the jury to convict and sentence him to 35 years behind bars. But three years later another rape-murder occurred in the same suburban-Washington, D.C. community with details that were eerily similar to the Hamm case. Police began to wonder if a rash of previous rapes all shared a common perpetrator. Investigators tapped the newly developed, still controversial forensic technique of DNA analysis. The tests soon linked Timothy Spencer, not David Vasquez, to the series of rapes. Spencer was eventually convicted and sentenced in 1988. Six months after the release of David Vasquez, another man - Gary Dotson of Illinois - was exonerated of a crime that he did not commit. The following year, Edward Green became the beneficiary of a third DNA exoneration. More exonerations followed, compelling prosecutors, lawmakers, and the American public to question long-held beliefs about the infallibility of the criminal justice system. The Innocence Movement was born. As Innocence Projects were established across the country, the pace of exonerations accelerated. It soon became possible to identify patterns and pinpoint causes of the wrongful convictions. The National Registry of Exonerations reported that 47% of wrongful convictions could be attributed to misconduct by prosecutors and other officials. Calls for reform could no longer be ignored. One of the most promising corrections has been the establishment of post-conviction review programs, commonly referred to as Conviction Integrity Units (CIUs). Conviction Integrity Units are entities located within District Attorneys' offices that are designed to investigate claims of wrongful convictions. Many of these units have also developed policies designed to reduce future false convictions. This White Paper spotlights Conviction Integrity Units, providing an overview of their administrative and screening procedures, a compilation of their accomplishments, and a discussion on how they have sought to achieve the proper degree of administrative independence. Details: Rockville, MD: Center for Prosecutor Integrity, 2014. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: White Paper: Accessed January 21, 2015 at: http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Conviction-Integrity-Units.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Conviction-Integrity-Units.pdf Shelf Number: 134425 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Prosecution (U.S.)Post-Conviction ReviewProsecutorsWrongful Convictions |
Author: Boyne, Shawn Marie Title: Juvenile Justice in Germany Summary: In this article, I trace the emergence of diverse models of juvenile prosecution practice in Germany and show how those models reflect local and regional attitudes towards the character of juvenile crime. The evolution of distinct local practices poses an intriguing challenge to a key underlying premise in the German criminal justice system-namely that prosecutorial decision-making is objective, impartial, and grounded in neutral legal standards which are impervious to political influence. To set the stage for this inquiry, I begin by laying out the basic framework of German juvenile law and the ambit of discretion which it permits. I then explore the actual patterns of juvenile criminality and punishment using published statistical reports. In the chapter's core, I delve into prosecutors' perceptions of the purposes of juvenile crime and actual sanctioning practices. This includes a discussion of decision making norms. Finally, the article details the aims and practices of newly developed fast-track programs and innovative "repeat offender" units established in some German cities. In the framework of that discussion I show how the latitude inherent in the law as well as the structure of management controls and workload pressures empower prosecution offices with the latitude to tailor prosecution policies to respond to community and political pressures Details: Indianapolis: Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, 2015. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Research Paper No. 2015-28 : Accessed August 14, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2608878 Year: 2015 Country: Germany URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2608878 Shelf Number: 136425 Keywords: Juvenile OffendersProsecutionProsecutorsRepeat Offenders |
Author: Bies, Katherine J. Title: Stuck in the '70s: The Demographics of California Prosecutors Summary: Recent events have renewed longstanding concerns about the treatment of racial minorities by the criminal justice system in California and throughout the United States. Part of that attention has focused on prosecutors, the gatekeepers to the criminal justice system and, in many ways, the system's most powerful officials. Nationwide protests followed failures by prosecutors last year to secure indictments against White police officers implicated in the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, two unarmed Black men, in Ferguson, Missouri, and Staten Island, New York. Those protests in turn prompted President Obama to remind the country of our legal system's "long history of discrimination." Considerable attention was also drawn to the decision in May of this year by the State's Attorney in Baltimore, Maryland to file charges against six police officers involved in the death of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old Black man arrested for what the police alleged was an illegal knife, while Gray was in custody. Prosecutors determine who is criminally charged, what they are charged with, what sentence will be sought, and what concessions, if any, will be offered in exchange for a guilty plea. Particularly in cases that do not proceed to trial-which are the vast majority of all criminal cases-the prosecutor's decisions effectively determine the outcome. Prosecutors also set broad policies for the criminal justice system, deciding which laws will be enforced aggressively and which will not, helping to convince other law enforcement officials how to pursue their missions, and often setting the agenda for public debates about criminal justice. The District Attorneys in Ferguson and on Staten Island were White men; the State's Attorney in Baltimore was a Black woman. It is impossible to know what role those facts played in their charging decisions, but the race and gender of the lead prosecutors understandably received considerable attention. Because prosecutors hold so much power and exercise so much discretion, it is cause for concern if they do not reflect the diversity of the public. Thus, one of the many questions raised by the Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Freddie Gray cases is: How representative are prosecutors of the communities that they serve?" In California, the answer is "not very." In 2014 Latinos surpassed Whites as the largest demographic group in California. Whites comprise slightly more than 38 percent of the population in California, but they are nearly 70 percent of California prosecutors. Latinos are almost 39 percent of the population but only nine percent of California prosecutors. The last time 70 percent of Californians were White was in 1977-the year that Jimmy Carter became President of the United States, Apple Computer was. Demographically speaking, California prosecutors are stuck in the '70s. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Stanford Law School, 2015. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2015 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Stuck-in-the-70s-Final-Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Stuck-in-the-70s-Final-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 137057 Keywords: DiscriminationMinority GroupsProsecutionProsecutorial DiscretionProsecutorsRacial Disparities |
Author: Ball, W. David Title: The New Normal? Prosecutorial Charging in California After Public Safety Realignment Summary: On April 4, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 109, the 2011 Public Safety Realignment Act ("Realignment" or "AB 109"), into law. AB 109 was one response to the 2009 Three-Judge Court Order for California to significantly reduce its prison population to 110,000 people, or 137.5% of design capacity, by year-end 2013. Affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 in Brown v. Plata, the Three-Judge Court Order determined prison overcrowding to be "the primary cause of the state's unconstitutional failure to provide adequate medical and mental health care to California prisoners," concluding that population reduction was the most narrowly drawn, least intrusive remedy. Realignment shifts the responsibility of supervising, tracking and imprisoning specified non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual ("triple-nons" or "N3 felonies" or "non-non-nons") offenders previously bound for state prison to county jails and probation (see Overview of Public Safety Realignment. The law states that "the purpose of justice reinvestment is to manage and allocate criminal justice populations more cost-effectively, generating savings that can be reinvested in evidence-based strategies that increase public safety while holding offenders accountable." The implementation of Realignment in California is the largest correctional experiment of its kind. Through AB 109, the Legislature has allocated over $2 billion in the first two years of implementation to assist California's 58 counties in carrying out the legislation's provisions. In addition, more than 100,000 offenders have had their sentences altered through mid-2013. The advent of Realignment, of course, affected the decision-making of all the official actors in the criminal justice system. But the prosecutor's role is unique in one clear sense: Prosecutors have, in formal legal terms, virtually un-reviewable autonomy in the choice to charge or not charge an offender (so long as any charge matches provable facts with statutory elements). Traditionally, in deciding whether to charge as high as the provable facts allow, they consider contextual aspects of the commission of the offense itself but also any relevant background aspects and criminal record of the offender. How does this power operate in the wake of AB 109? On the one hand, AB 109 simply classified a large number of pre-existing felonies under California Penal Code S1170(h) because they were deemed "triple-nons." In that sense, prosecutors in theory might be indifferent to the change; they would continue to charge these felonies according to the same factors as they always had, and the changes in site of incarceration and possible change in de facto length of sentences would happen of their own accord. In a sense, the only mandated change in prosecutorial choice here had to do with sentence recommendation: Because judges now have the power to impose a split sentence for an AB 109 conviction - fractioning the sentence between jail time and community supervision - when prosecutors exercise their usual function of recommending sentences, they now have to build the matter of split versus straight sentences into that responsibility. Prosecutors have also always been free to consider such resource factors as their own and other agencies' budgets and crowding in jails and prisons. But many aspects of AB 109 were likely from the start to weigh significantly on the decisions made by prosecutors as they exercise their traditional charging and recommendation choices after October 2011. The most salient aspects were the change in site and de facto length of incarceration, as well as the secondary effects of new county responsibilities for post-release supervision of many prisoners returning home. In particular, in exercising discretion, prosecutors might be influenced by their views on the differences in the severity of experience of incarceration in jail as opposed to prison, or by their concerns about jail crowding or the extra costs that county jails and other county agencies might have to absorb under AB 109. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Stanford Law School, 2014. 187p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2015 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/513777/doc/slspublic/DA%20report%20Feb%202014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/513777/doc/slspublic/DA%20report%20Feb%202014.pdf Shelf Number: 137169 Keywords: CorrectionsCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentPrison OvercrowdingPrison ReformPrisonsProsecutionProsecutorial DiscretionProsecutorsPublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Innocence Project Title: Prosecutorial Oversight: A National Dialogue in the Wake of Connick v. Thompson Summary: In 1984, John Thompson was wrongfully convicted of two separate crimes-a robbery and murder - in Louisiana. He was prosecuted first for the robbery, which helped prosecutors secure the death penalty in his murder case. While facing his seventh execution date in Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, a private investigator hired by his appellate attorneys discovered scientific evidence of Thompson's innocence in the robbery case that had been concealed for 15 years by the New Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office. Thompson was eventually exonerated of both crimes in 2003 after 18 years in prison-14 of them isolated on death row. The state of Louisiana gave him $10 and a bus ticket upon his release. He sued the district attorney's office. A jury awarded him $14 million-$1 million for each year on death row. When Louisiana appealed, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 29, 2011, Justice Clarence Thomas issued the majority 5-4 decision in Connick v. Thompson that the prosecutor's office could not be held liable, ultimately granting prosecutors broad immunity for their misconduct. In the wake of the Court's decision, the Innocence Project, the Veritas Initiative at Santa Clara University, the Innocence Project of New Orleans and Resurrection After Exoneration formed the Prosecutorial Oversight Coalition to review the apparent lack of accountability for prosecutorial error and misconduct. On the fifth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Connick v. Thompson, the coalition released Prosecutorial Oversight: A National Dialogue in the Wake of Connick v. Thompson, a report calling for greater transparency and accountability for prosecutors. The report details the findings of original research conducted by the coalition, in which it reviewed court findings of misconduct over a five-year period for five geographically diverse states-California, Arizona, Texas, Pennsylvania and New York- and documented 660 findings of misconduct - a likely undercount given the difficulties in identifying this behavior. The report also details highlights from a series of forums that the coalition convened in the same five states where it conducted research, to bring together panelists from all aspects of the criminal justice system to spark a meaningful dialogue about the problem and to suggest recommendations for systems that would promote greater accountability. Participants included current and former prosecutors, ethics professors, members of state bar disciplinary committees, exonerated people, defense lawyers and judges. The forum discussions greatly informed the recommendations in the report, which are targeted to the various stakeholders, including prosecutors, courts, state lawmakers and state bar oversight entities. Details: New York: Innocence Project, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 31, 2016 at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/prosecutorial-oversight-report Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/prosecutorial-oversight-report Shelf Number: 138505 Keywords: Prosecutorial MisconductProsecutorsWrongful Convictions |
Author: Fair Punishment Project Title: America's Top Five Deadliest Prosecutors: How Overzealous Personalities Drive the Death Penalty Summary: This report analyzes the records of five of America's deadliest head prosecutors. Three of them personally obtained over 35 death sentences each: Joe Freeman Britt in North Carolina, Bob Macy in Oklahoma, and Donnie Myers in South Carolina. These men shared an obsession with winning death sentences at almost any cost. For example, Joe Freeman Britt, who committed misconduct in more than 36% of his death penalty prosecutions, said: "Within the breast of each of us burns a flame that constantly whispers in our ear 'preserve life, preserve life, preserve life at any cost.' It is the prosecutor's job to extinguish that flame." The remaining two prosecutors, Lynne Abraham (Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania) and Johnny Holmes (Harris County, Texas), did not personally prosecute as many death penalty cases as the three men above, but nonetheless oversaw the imposition of death sentences against a staggering 108 and 201 people, respectively, during their terms. Of these five prosecutors, only one - Donnie Myers - remains in office, and he plans to retire at the end of the year. One of the most remarkable findings from our research is the fact that once these prosecutors and their proteges left their positions, death sentences dramatically declined in these jurisdictions - a pattern that has only become clear in the years since their departures. We also highlight five additional prosecutors who came very close to becoming members of this notorious group. These runners-up have egregious records in their own states, and like the prosecutors above, the striking drop in new death sentences that has occurred in their respective jurisdictions since their departures illustrates their outsized impact on the death penalty. Details: s.l.: Fair Punishment Project, 2016. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 20, 2016 at: http://fairpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/FPP-Top5Report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://fairpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/FPP-Top5Report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 139721 Keywords: Capital PunishmentDeath PenaltyProsecutors |
Author: Fair Punishment Project Title: Too Broken to Fix: Part 1. An In-depth Look at America's Outlier Death Penalty Counties Summary: This report offers an in-depth look at how the death penalty is operating in the small handful of counties across the country that are still using it. Of the 3,143 county or county equivalents in the United States, only 16 - or one half of one percent - imposed five or more death sentences between 2010 and 2015. Part I of the report, titled Too Broken to Fix: An In-depth Look at America's Outlier Death Penalty Counties, examined 10 years of court opinions and records from eight of these 16 "outlier counties," including Caddo Parish (LA), Clark (NV), Duval (FL), Harris (TX), Maricopa (AZ), Mobile (AL), Kern (CA) and Riverside (CA). The report also analyzed all of the new death sentences handed down in these counties since 2010. The report notes that these "outlier counties" are plagued by persistent problems of overzealous prosecutors, ineffective defense lawyers, and racial bias. Researchers found that the impact of these systemic problems included the conviction of innocent people, and the excessively harsh punishment of people with significant impairments. The report notes that many of the defendants appear to have one or more impairments that are on par with, or worse than, those that the U.S. Supreme Court has said should categorically exempt individuals from execution due to lessened culpability. The Court previously found that individuals with intellectual disabilities (Atkins v. Virginia, 2002) and juveniles under the age of 18 (Roper v. Simmons, 2005) should not be subject to the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment. In conducting its analysis, the we reviewed more than 200 direct appeals opinions handed down between 2006 and 2015 in these eight counties. We found: - Sixty percent of cases involved defendants with significant mental impairments or other forms of mitigation. - Eighteen percent of cases involved a defendant who was under the age of 21 at the time of the offense. In Riverside County, 16 percent of the defendants were age 18 at the time of the offense. - Forty-four percent of cases involved a defendant who had an intellectual disability, brain damage, or severe mental illness. In four of the counties, half or more of the defendants had mental impairments: Maricopa (62 percent), Mobile (60 percent), Caddo Parish (57 percent), and Kern (50 percent). - Approximately one in seven cases involved a finding of prosecutorial misconduct. Maricopa and Clark counties had misconduct in 21 percent and 47 percent of cases respectively. - Bad lawyering was a persistent problem across all of the counties. In most of the counties, the average mitigation presentation at the penalty phase of the trial, in which the defense lawyer is supposed to present all of the evidence showing that the defendant's life should be spared - including testimony from mental health and other experts, lasted approximately one day. While this is just one data point for determining the quality of legal representation, this finding reveals appalling inadequacies. In Duval County, Florida, the entire penalty phase of the trial and the jury verdict often came in the same day. - A relatively small group of defense lawyers represented a substantial number of the individuals who ended up on death row. In Kern County, one lawyer represented half of the individuals who ended up on death row between 2010 and 2015. Additional findings: - Five of the eight counties had at least one person exonerated from death row since 1976. Harris County has had three death row exonerations, and Maricopa has had five. - Out of all of the death sentences obtained in these counties between 2010 and 2015, 41 percent were given to African-American defendants, and 69 percent were given to people of color. In Duval, 87 percent of defendants were Black in this period. In Harris, 100 percent of the defendants who were newly sentenced to death since November 2004 have been people of color. - The race of the victim is also a significant factor in who is sentenced to death in many of these counties. In Mobile County, 67 percent of the Black defendants, and 88% of all defendants, who were sentenced to death were convicted of killing white victims. In Clark County, 71 percent of all of the victims were white in cases resulting in a death sentence. The report noted just three white defendants sentenced to death for killing Black victims between 2010 and 2015. One of those cases was from Riverside, and in that case the defendant was also convicted of killing two additional white victims. The two other cases were from Duval. - Five of the 16 "outlier counties" are from Florida and Alabama, the only two states that currently allow non-unanimous jury verdicts. In Duval, 88 percent of the decisions in the review period were non-unanimous, and in Mobile the figure was 80 percent. Details: s.l.: Fair Punishment Project, 2016. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 27, 2016 at: http://fairpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/FPP-TooBroken.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://fairpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/FPP-TooBroken.pdf Shelf Number: 140054 Keywords: Capital PunishmentDeath PenaltyProsecutorsRacial DisparitiesSentencingWrongful Convictions |
Author: Romero, Maybell Title: Profit-Driven Prosecution and the Competitive Bidding Process Summary: Prosecutors are the most powerful organs of the criminal justice system, enjoying discretion in decision-making far beyond that of law enforcement officials, defense attorneys, and judges. Perhaps due to this exceptional position, contemporary understandings and perceptions of criminal prosecutors have tended to be largely positive; evidence of such a normative understanding of the prosecutor and its role may be found from a variety of sources, from (other) law review articles to pop cultural touchstones in television and movies. The prevailing "prosecutorial norm" in the public consciousness embodies 1) a full-time government employee, 2) who devotes all of their time and professional energies to criminal prosecution, and 3) tries to somehow do or affect some vague notion of "justice." Such norms, however, are regularly challenged and flouted when the prosecutorial function is outsourced. While the outsourcing of nearly every function of the criminal adjudicative process has attracted great attention among scholars and policymakers, a greater critical lens must be focused on prosecutors. The hazards of prosecutorial outsourcing have largely been neglected because existing prosecutorial scholarship focuses on the United States Attorney or district attorneys' offices in large, metropolitan areas. Not all prosecutorial offices are created equal, however. Cities, towns, and other small political subdivisions throughout the country frequently hire prosecutors on a part-time basis through a competitive bidding process, releasing requests for proposals (RFPs) in an effort to procure bids. This practice, however, may be observed not only in small or rural municipalities, but also in cities located near larger population centers. Examples of such municipalities include Ferguson, Missouri, or Kyle, Texas. Such local governments often work with budgets that are not expansive enough to hire a full-time city attorney or prosecutor. Beyond demonstrating the qualifications the applicant attorneys or firms vying for a prosecution contract may have to serve as good prosecutors, applications from such applicants must also demonstrate cost effectiveness by detailing what budget and compensation is required during the term of service specified by the RFP. While engaging in a competitive bidding process may seem like a smart way to handle the problem of governmental waste and financial inefficiencies, it introduces a host of challenges and negative externalities. This Article sheds light on the problems caused by introducing an overtly economic calculation (how cheaply and how profitably the prosecutorial function may be fulfilled) into the criminal adjudicative process. This practice not only flouts American Bar Association and National District Attorney Association prosecutorial standards, but also undermines the prosecutorial norms described above in ways that are likely to destabilize confidence - and the social cohesion born of such confidence - in local criminal justice systems. This practice has the risk, however, of expanding beyond the reach of non-metropolitan jurisdictions to larger counties, cities, and local governments as budgets continue to shrink across the board and devolution and privatization continue to be advanced as cure-alls to economic woes. Details: Provo, UT: Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School, 2016. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: BYU Law Research Paper No. 16-21 : Accessed August 30, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2820312 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2820312 Shelf Number: 140101 Keywords: Criminal ProcedureCriminal ProsecutionProsecutors |
Author: de Casio, Ana Cardenas Gonzalez Title: The Effect of the 'War on Organised Crime' on the Mexican Federal Judiciary: A Comparative Case Study of Judicial Decision-Making Summary: Using a comparative case study design, this thesis explores the impact on the Mexican federal judiciary of steep rises in violent crime, proliferation of armed organised crime groups, greater involvement of the military in crime control activities and the government's 'war on organised crime'. The thesis develops 'enemy penology' as a theoretical framework based on the observation that the Mexican government has increasingly conceptualised offenders as enemies and called for an explicitly militarised criminal justice response. Drawing on this theoretical framework, the thesis analyses qualitative data from two different sites - a 'crime control as warfare' scenario (highly militarised state) and an unchanged context (less militarised state). Findings are examined within the enemy penology framework and also drawing on theories of judicial behaviour and judicial roles in order to explain the overarching finding that judges seem to have insulated themselves from the 'enemy penology' promulgated by the government. Analysis of 40 written judgements in drug cases and 28 semi-structured interviews with judges (drawn from a total of 56 interviews achieved during the fieldwork) indicated that decision making, guilt determination and sentencing were almost identical in the two locations despite stark differences in context. In both locations, the study observed an inclination to privilege police evidence, high conviction rates despite poor prosecutorial performance and insufficient evidence, and a tendency to impose minimum sentences. Interviewees discussed these issues as well as the impact of armed criminality, military involvement in crime control and judicial independence. Overall, the Federal judiciary appeared to be not influenced by the enemy penology paradigm reproduced by public officials and criminal policies. Mexican judicial behaviour was found to be strongly shaped by a formalistic and legalistic understanding of judicial duties where accuracy in law interpretation is expected, disregarding other goals, including politics and policy considerations. This understanding is enhanced by the judiciary through strict observance of precedents, reversals and enhancing law-interpreter and ritualist judicial roles. Nonetheless, the empirical data also showed that judges' views and opinions are informed by strategic goals, attitudes, motives, managerial needs and the pursuit of self-respect and recognition. In sum, examining court judgements and judges' views about deciding cases in the light of the prevalent 'enemy penology' provided a rich understanding of the way decision- making in criminal matters is constructed by judges as well as the complex and often contradictory layers that comprise the image and role of the Mexican federal judge. Details: London: King's College London, Dickson Poon School of Law, 2016. 332p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed October 13, 2016 at: https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/57599059/2016_Gonz_lez_De_Cos_o_Ana_C_rdenas_1140394_ethesis.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Mexico URL: https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/57599059/2016_Gonz_lez_De_Cos_o_Ana_C_rdenas_1140394_ethesis.pdf Shelf Number: 145441 Keywords: Drug OffendersJudgesJudicial Decision-MakingOrganized CrimeProsecutorsViolent Crime |
Author: Merola, Linda Title: Body Worn Cameras and the Courts: A National Survey of State Prosecutors Summary: Recent use-of-force events involving police in Ferguson, New York City, South Carolina, and Baltimore have led law enforcement agencies, citizens, civil rights groups, city councils, and even President Obama to push for the rapid adoption of body-worn camera (BWC) technology by police. In a period of less than a year, BWCs transformed from a technology that received little attention by many police leaders and scholars to one that has become rapidly prioritized, funded, and diffused into local policing. The U.S. Department of Justice has dedicated $20 million to fund the purchase of and technical assistance for BWCs. In 2013, the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics survey estimated that about a third of local law enforcement agencies had already adopted BWCs, and this percentage has likely greatly increased since then. At the same time, this rapid adoption of BWCs is occurring within a low information environment; researchers are only beginning to develop knowledge about the effects, both intentional and unintentional, of this technology. A recent review of the literature on the topic of BWCs conducted by White (2014) found only a handful of empirical studies of the technology completed by September 2013. These studies have focused on a narrow set of research questions about the impact of the cameras on police behavior. Further, only a small subset of these studies rigorously examined BWCs using valid scientific methods. As Lum (2015) has emphasized, rapid adoption of technologies in the absence of high-quality information about the impact of those technologies can lead to unanticipated and unintended consequences that may work against both police and citizen interests. The need for more research in this area is paramount, as the adoption of BWCs will likely have important implications for police-citizen interactions, police management and budgets, safety and security, citizen privacy, citizen reporting and cooperation with police, and practices in the courts. But what research questions and types of research should be pursued and why? How can we build a translatable knowledge base that is responsive and rigorous? In our first report to the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (see Lum, Koper, Merola, Scherer & Reioux, 2015), we reviewed the existing and ongoing body worn camera research to identify what was known about BWCs and what questions needed further research. In this report, we build on the knowledge about body worn cameras by carrying out a national survey of state prosecutors’ offices to begin to understand the impacts of BWCs on the courts. A random sample of 1,005 prosecutors’ offices was drawn from the National Census of State Prosecutors produced by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS, 2007). Mail-based surveys with an electronic option across multiple waves of data collection yielded 321 returned surveys. Lead prosecutors were asked about their use of body worn camera footage so far, as well as their opinions about key issues related to the technology and any concerns they have about the adoption of cameras by law enforcement in their jurisdictions. Key findings from this survey revealed: Most state prosecutors’ offices (almost two-thirds) are already working with BWC evidence. Of these offices, a full 42.1% have used the evidence for longer than one year. Yet, a significant number (almost one-fifth of those using BWC evidence) are still very new to working with it (one month or less). Nearly all prosecutors’ offices in jurisdictions with BWCs (92.6%) have used BWC evidence to prosecute private citizens. In comparison, 8.3% of offices located in jurisdictions with BWCs indicated that they have used BWC evidence to prosecute a police officer. It should be noted, however, that many more total citizens than police are prosecuted each year, so these percentages are not directly comparable. Generally, lead prosecutors expressed strong support for the use of BWCs. Very high numbers of respondents (79.5%) indicated that prosecutors in their offices support BWC use. Additionally, large majorities believed that BWC evidence will help the prosecution more than it will assist the defense (62.7%) and that BWCs would improve prosecutors’ overall ability to prosecute cases (65.8%). Fewer than 10% of lead prosecutors disagreed with these statements. Taken together, these results suggest that lead prosecutors view BWC evidence as a powerful prosecutorial tool. Yet, most lead prosecutors recognized that BWCs would produce both positive and negative impacts on prosecutors’ workloads. A majority (64.2%) believed that BWC evidence would aid in witness preparation. However, most lead prosecutors also felt that BWC evidence would increase prosecutors’ case preparation time (54% agreement) and make the discovery process more burdensome or difficult for them (56.2% agreement). These findings regarding increased workload make sense, as prosecutors will be working with a new stream of evidence. Lead prosecutors also emphasized a continuing need to address logistical issues related to BWC evidence. A majority 59.5% of respondents expressed concern over the redaction of BWC videos. Indeed, most lead prosecutors who are working with BWCs indicated that their offices must perform their own redactions, a process which can be costly and time consuming. 54.1% were also concerned about their office’s ability to quickly obtain videos from law enforcement for use in cases. Despite these logistical issues, however, relatively few respondents (12.7%) expressed concern over negative impacts to the police-prosecutor working relationship stemming from BWCs. When asked about resources needed to utilize BWCs effectively, the most urgent requests focused more on infrastructure and technology than on personnel. A large majority (65.4%) reported a high or moderately high need for upgrades to existing technology to view or show videos. 51.9% indicated that their offices would have high/moderately high requirements for resources to alter evidence cataloging or storage systems to effectively handle BWC evidence. Likewise, 46.3% of lead prosecutors also highlighted the need for resources to hire technical support personnel or provide technical training. In contrast, fewer respondents prioritized the need to hire either additional support personnel (36.7%) or additional prosecutors (22.4%) in response to BWCs. When asked about the impacts of BWCs on courts, lead prosecutors cited primarily positive prosecutorial outcomes. A majority believed that BWC evidence would increase both rates of conviction (58.3% agreement) and the frequency/likelihood of plea bargains (62.3% agreement). In fact, fewer than 10% of lead prosecutors disagreed that BWCs would produce either of these results. Comparatively few lead prosecutors believed that BWC evidence would increase either the numbers of appeals or case dismissals. However, larger numbers of respondents (42.5%) indicated neutrality with respect to the question about case dismissals, signaling that views on this point may not yet be well developed. However, nearly 30% of lead prosecutors believed that BWCs would lead to delays in case processing or other court delays. While not a majority, this finding is consistent with other results suggesting that logistical issues of evidence transfer, storage, and sufficient technical training are yet to be fully resolved. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, 2016. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2016 at: http://cebcp.org/wp-content/technology/BWCProsecutors.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://cebcp.org/wp-content/technology/BWCProsecutors.pdf Shelf Number: 146965 Keywords: Body-Worn CamerasEvidence GatheringPolice AccountabilityPolice SurveillancePolice Use of ForceProsecutors |
Author: Fazekas, Tamas Title: The Practice of Pre-Trial Detention: Monitoring Alternatives and Judicial decision-Making Summary: During the past few years, pre-trial detainees have made up almost one-third of the prison population in Hungary, contributing to the overcrowding of the penitentiary system, which, according to a 2015 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), constitutes a structural problem in Hungary. For over half a decade until 2013, the number of pre-trial detainees in Hungary had increased constantly. However, since 2014, significant positive developments have been detected in the statistical data: there has been a reduction of around 20% in the number of cases in which pretrial detention is ordered, corresponding to a decrease in the number of prosecutorial motions aimed at ordering this coercive measure. This decrease in the use of pre-trial detention does not, however, guarantee that judicial decisions and indeed the decision-making process as a whole are consistently compliant with standards established by the higher Hungarian judicial forums, the ECtHR and relevant European Union (EU) legislation. The research project "The Practice of Pre-trial Detention: Monitoring Alternatives and Judicial Decision-making", funded by the EU, was conducted in 10 different EU Member States in 2014–2015, in Hungary by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee. The project’s research results presented below are based on (i) a desk-research, (ii) a survey conducted among 31 defence counsels, (iii) review of the case files of 116 defendants convicted primarily for robbery, (iv) interviews with five prosecutors, and (vi) written responses provided by 10 judges to a standard set of questions. An overview of the results of the research is as follows: 1. Decision-making procedure The presence of a defence lawyer is optional at judicial hearings on pre-trial detention and in fact ex officio appointed lawyers rarely appear at the hearing. Where they are present, their level of activity is often low. While the reasons for this were not identified through the research, such situations jeopardise the effectiveness of the suspect’s defence. 45% of lawyers surveyed explained that they have only 30 minutes or less with access to the case file in which to prepare for the hearing. While the amendments of the Hungarian Code of Criminal Procedure aimed at transposing Article 7 of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (Right to Information Directive) have brought along substantial improvement in the defence’s access to evidence related to pre-trial detention, the practice of authorities can pose significant obstacles to the effective exercise of this right. 2. The substance of decisions Pre-trial detention was ordered in the vast majority of cases observed and reviewed. The most common reasons for ordering pre-trial detention were the risk of absconding, interfering with the course of justice and the risk of reoffending. The reasons given by judges for ordering pre-trial detention are often abstract and not specific to the case, repeating the prosecutorial motions requesting a pre-trial detention order. The analysis of the data supports a long-standing complaint of defence counsels, namely that courts seem to pay no or little attention to the arguments put forth by the defence: in the sample, judges referred to the evidence or arguments of the prosecution in 92.4% of the decisions, and only in 50% did they refer to the arguments of the defence. In violation of ECtHR-standards, the risk of absconding is often established solely or primarily on the basis of the gravity of the offence and the prospective punishment. The courts also tend to attribute great relevance to circumstances that, according to the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, may not serve as decisive factors. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee encountered a number of decisions in the case files that referred to the risk of interfering with the course of justice on the basis of very abstract arguments and often in phases of the procedure when such risks are minuscule or non-existent (after the closing of the investigation and, in one case, even after the delivery of the first instance judgment). With regard to the risk of reoffending, court decisions referring to convictions that took place long before the suspected perpetration of the offence serving as the basis of the actual proceeding, or convictions of completely different nature, as well as the substantiation of detention with nothing but the lack of regular income were encountered, in contradiction with ECtHR jurisprudence. 3. Use of alternatives to detention Statistical data show that existing alternatives to pre-trial detention (house arrest, etc.) are heavily underused. Interviews with judges and prosecutors seem to support defence counsels’ perception that there is little confidence in alternatives, and that this has not changed significantly with the introduction of electronic tagging in 2013. 4. Review of pre-trial detention The statistical analysis of further decisions on pre-trial detention (prolonging, upholding or reviewing pre-trial detention) provides evidence for the continuous lack of tailored reasoning for the ongoing deprivation of liberty. The concerns raised above in relation to the substance of initial pre-trial detention decisions also apply to these further decisions. In relation to appeals against pre-trial detention, second instance courts deciding on pre-trial detention never meet the defendant in person, which may be a violation of the ECtHR standards. In addition, it sometimes takes a very long time to deliver the second instance decisions, which is a violation of the obligation to proceed with adequate speed in cases where the defendant is deprived of his/her liberty. The research shows that investigating authorities often do not conduct more efficient investigations when cases involve a detainee. These instances result in a number of cases in which the length of detention violates the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and Hungarian law. In addition, the elimination of the statutory upper limit of pre-trial detention in some cases gives the dangerous message that the legislator is willing to accept serious delays in procedures even when the defendants are deprived of their liberty. Recommendations The conclusions of the research indicate that the practice of pre-trial detention decision-making in Hungary falls short of the ECtHR standards in a number of areas. In light of these findings, the main recommendations are the following: The presence of defence counsel at hearings related to pre-trial detention should be made mandatory, and a deadline for notifying the defence counsel about the hearings related to pre-trial detention should be established, which ensures that defence counsel can participate in the hearing. The legal amendment that allows for unlimited periods for pre-trial detention in certain cases should be abolished and fair time limits imposed. Various legislative steps seem desirable with the purpose of guaranteeing the reasonable length of pre-trial detention. E.g. judges should be authorised to terminate pre-trial detention on the basis of the authorities’ failure to conduct the proceeding in a fast track manner if the suspect is detained. In order to ensure unrestricted access to the case files, the respective legal provisions should be further amended to ensure the effective implementation of the Right to Information Directive. Alternatives to pre-trial detention should be used more often. The underuse of these should be examined by one of the jurisprudence-analysis groups established by the president of the highest judicial forum. Reasoning of pre-trial detention orders at all levels could be improved by respective judicial and prosecutorial training, including information on the related ECtHR case-law to ensure ECtHR standards are applied when making decisions related to pre-trial detention. The law should be amended to ensure that appeal decisions in the pre-trial detention context can or in certain cases must only be taken after an oral hearing. Legislative reform should further impose deadlines to ensure that second instance decisions are delivered within an adequate time-frame. Details: Budapest: Hungarian Helsinki Committee, 2015. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 23, 2016 at: http://www.helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/PTD_country_report_Hungary_HHC_2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Hungary URL: http://www.helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/PTD_country_report_Hungary_HHC_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 147810 Keywords: Judicial Decision MakingPretrial DetentionProsecutors |
Author: Cortes, Nancy G. Title: Perspectives on Mexico's Criminal Justice System: What Do Its Operators Think? Survey of Judges, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders Summary: Justice in Mexico, a research and public policy program based at the University of San Diego, released the English version of the latest publication in the Justiciabarometro series, Justiciabarometro 2016- Perspectives on Mexico's Criminal Justice System: What do its operators think?, thanks to the generous funding from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The 2016 Justiciabarometro provides a comparative analysis of the justice system operators' demographics and perspectives, as well as comparisons to similar data collected in 2010. Survey participants included 288 judges, 279 prosecutors, and 127 public defenders in 11 Mexican states, with a response rate of 56%, a 2.4% margin of error, and a 95% confidence interval. Details: San Diego: Justice in Mexico, Department of Political Science & International Relations, University of San Diego, 2017. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2017 at: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2016-Justiciabarometro_English-Version_Online.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Mexico URL: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2016-Justiciabarometro_English-Version_Online.pdf Shelf Number: 145065 Keywords: Court ReformCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsJudgesProsecutorsPublic Defenders |
Author: Bellin, Jeffrey Title: Reassessing Prosecutorial Power Through the Lens of Mass Incarceration Summary: Prosecutors have long been the Darth Vader of academic writing: mysterious, all-powerful and, for the most part, bad. This uber-prosecutor theme flows like the force through John Pfaff's highly-anticipated new book, "Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration - and How to Achieve Real Reform." The book concludes that police, legislators, and judges are not to blame for Mass Incarceration. Instead, "the most powerful actors in the entire criminal justice system" (prosecutors) have used their "almost unfettered, unreviewable power to determine who gets sent to prison and for how long." Locked In's data-driven thesis aligns neatly with the academic consensus. If prosecutors are the most powerful actor in the criminal justice system, they must be responsible for its most noteworthy product - Mass Incarceration. The only problem is that it probably isn't right. While Pfaff's empirical findings have been embraced by the media, the legal academy, and even former President Obama, they are grounded in questionable data. With these flaws exposed, the familiar villains of the Mass Incarceration story reemerge: judges and, above all, legislators. This reemergence provides a very different focus for reforms designed to unwind Mass Incarceration. It also says something profound about prosecutorial power. Prosecutors possess substantial power to let people escape from an increasingly inflexible system. But decades of academic claims suggesting that prosecutors are equally powerful when acting in the opposite direction - to dictate sanctions - fold under scrutiny. When it comes to imposing incarceration, prosecutorial power is largely contingent on the actions of other, more powerful criminal justice actors. Details: Unpublished paper, 2017. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2017 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2930116 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2930116 Shelf Number: 150548 Keywords: JudgesMass IncarcerationProsecutors |
Author: Labriola, Melissa Title: Prosecutor-Led Pretrial Diversion: Case Studies in Eleven Jurisdictions Summary: In response to tightening state budgets, combined with persistently large criminal caseloads and local jail populations, jurisdictions around the country have been seeking alternatives to traditional case processing. One such alternative is prosecutor-led diversion, which typically involves providing treatment or services in lieu of prosecution for low-level defendants. With funding from the National Institute of Justice, the primary focus of this study was to provide a national portrait of prosecutor-led diversion through case studies of the goals, history, policies, and practices of diversion programs implemented in 11 prosecutor's offices. In general, relatively large, high volume programs were selected for inclusion in the research, with ten of the 11 prosecutor's offices handling cases in large urban areas. The programs were also intentionally selected to provide for variation in program timing (pre- or postfiling); target population (e.g., misdemeanor, felony, or more specific types of charges); program intensity and duration; and other policies and practices. The case studies provided in this report were designed to produce a rich understanding of contemporary prosecutor-led pretrial diversion programs nationwide. The research involved three strategies: (1) intensive case studies of 15 diversion programs run by ten prosecutors' offices across the country; (2) focus groups with diversion participants in select sites; and (3) an examination of lessons learned from an eleventh site, the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, which experienced a change of leadership and consequent revamping of diversion programs during a period overlapping with the timing of our study. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2017. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 19, 2018 at: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2017-11/pretrial_diversion_case_study_report_final_provrel.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2017-11/pretrial_diversion_case_study_report_final_provrel.pdf Shelf Number: 148872 Keywords: Diversion Program Pretrial Diversion Prosecutors |
Author: New York University Center on the Administration of Criminal Law Title: Disrupting the Cycle: Reimagining the Prosecutor's Role in Reentry: A Guide to Best Practices Summary: The report provides concrete recommendations that prosecutors can implement in order to focus on reentry and target the risk of recidivism. The report proceeds in four parts: PART I focuses on reforms that prosecutors can implement at the "front end" of the process, including considering how prosecutorial discretion at various stages of a criminal case can impact defendants' risk of recidivism and affect their reentry process. This includes using discretion to make screening and charging decisions, considering diversion and other alternatives to incarceration, supporting pretrial release of defendants where appropriate, and considering the use of creative sentencing alternatives; PART II focuses on reforms that prosecutors can implement at the "back end" of the process to begin preparing for an incarcerated individual's eventual reentry to their community. This includes prerelease reentry planning, and removing barriers that interfere with their ability to reintegrate into their communities, such as obtaining identification and drivers' licenses, providing them opportunities to expunge their convictions and reduce fines that may burden them upon release, and collaborating with employers and community-based resources; PART III focuses on the prosecutor as office leader and highlights office-wide reforms that can shift office culture to include anti-recidivism concerns as part of a broader focus on public safety; and PART IV focuses on the prosecutor's role in the larger community and how he or she can use his or her power to engage a diverse group of stakeholders in outreach and education initiatives, including legislative reforms designed to target recidivism at the front and back ends of the justice system. Details: New York: NYU Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, 2017. 110p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2018 at: http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/CACL%20Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/CACL%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 149228 Keywords: Offender ReintegrationPrisoner ReentryProsecutorial DiscretionProsecutorsRecidivism |
Author: Mocan, Naci H. Title: Quality of Judicial Institutions, Crimes, Misdemeanors, and Dishonesty Summary: We investigate the extent to which the quality of judicial institutions has an impact on individuals' propensity for criminal and dishonest behavior and on their views regarding the acceptability of dishonesty and law-breaking. We use micro data on residents of 25 European countries and employ alternative measures of judicial quality. Acknowledging that the quality of judicial institutions is endogenous, we employ as an instrument the procedures with which prosecutors and judges are appointed to their posts in each country. The results reveal that an increase in the quality of judicial institutions, such as an improvement in judicial independence or the impartiality of the courts, has a deterrent effect on dishonest and criminal acts. A higher quality judicial system makes individuals less likely to find acceptable a variety dishonest and illicit behaviors, suggesting that institutions help shape the beliefs of the society. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2018. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working paper Series; Working Paper 24396: Accessed March 14, 2018 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w24396.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Europe URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w24396.pdf Shelf Number: 149465 Keywords: Criminal Courts Judges Prosecutors |
Author: Ouss, Aurelie Title: Evaluating the Impacts of Eliminating Prosecutorial Requests for Cash Bail Summary: Recent criminal justice reform efforts have focused on electing progressive prosecutors to implement change, such as the reduction of cash bail as a requirement for pretrial release. However, critics worry that removing cash bail will decrease account- ability and increase failure-to-appear in court. We test this by looking at the effects of the No-Cash-Bail reform policy initiated by Philadelphia's recently elected District Attorney, Larry Krasner. Under this policy, the DA's office stopped requesting cash bail for defendants charged with a large variety of different offenses, both misdemeanor and felony. This policy led to an immediate 23% increase (12 percentage points) in the fraction of eligible defendants released with no monetary or other conditions (ROR), and a 22% (5 percentage points) decrease in the fraction of defendants who spent at least one night in jail, but no detectable difference for longer jail stays. The main effect of this policy was therefore to reduce the use of collateral to incentivize court appearance. In spite of this large decrease in the fraction of defendants having monetary incentives to show up to court, we detect no change in failure-to-appear in court or in recidivism, suggesting that reductions in the use of monetary bail can be made without significant adverse consequences. These results also demonstrate the role of prosecutors in determining outcomes over which they have no direct authority, such as setting bail. Details: Unpublished paper, 2019. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper No. LS 19-08: Accessed February 25, 2019 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3335138 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3335138 Shelf Number: 154741 Keywords: Bail Pretrial Justice Pretrial Release Prosecutors |
Author: Center for Health and Justice at TASC Title: No Entry: A Survey of Prosecutorial Diversion in Illinois Summary: "No Entry: A Survey of Prosecutorial Diversion in Illinois," presents information collected on program authorization, oversight, target populations, goals, structure, services, outcomes, and evaluation. It offers observations and recommendations intended to guide criminal justice practitioners and other stakeholders in the development, implementation, expansion, replication, and improvement of diversion programs. As criminal justice reform efforts take hold across the country, diversion programs and initiatives operating at the front end of the justice system represent one of the most promising reform strategies. In these interventions, criminal justice system practitioners work in partnership with stakeholders to deflect and redirect eligible individuals out of the system and into community-based services. They stand in contrast to decades of public policies and practices that have resulted in record incarceration rates, unsustainable costs, and long-lasting collateral consequences harming generations of families and communities. In some programs and initiatives, diversion from the system can occur without even the logging of an arrest. In others, prosecution or sentencing is deferred while participants engage in supervised programming, and charges are dropped when it is completed successfully. By intervening early, caseloads and jail days can be reduced, criminal records can be prevented, and access to services that put men and women on the path to health and stability can be accelerated. Diversion can prevent the costs and harmful collateral consequences-to the justice system, the community, and the individual-of repeated arrests, convictions, and incarcerations. A variety of diversion models and approaches have been implemented, and some have been researched and evaluated with regard to effectiveness and impact. Local jurisdictions seeking to apply effective interventions that meet their needs to improve outcomes and spend resources wisely are increasingly incorporating risk-need-responsitivity principles designed to identify the needs of individuals that, if effectively addressed, would reduce re-offending. As jurisdictions take steps to address recidivism and the nexus between drug use, mental illness, and criminal behavior, and as the body of knowledge on these programs continues to expand, practitioners are becoming more versed in a variety of critical issues that have surfaced in national conversations and must be considered locally. Building on its 2013 report, No Entry: A National Survey of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs and Initiatives, and in recognition of the many diversion programs that have emerged under the strong and innovative leadership of local prosecutors, TASC's Center for Health and Justice (CHJ) set out to explore more deeply the landscape of prosecutorial diversion in Illinois, and specifically that which affords adults an opportunity to be accountable for their behavior without the imposition of a criminal conviction on public record. To that end, between May and December 2015, project staff conducted a survey among prosecutors of diversion programs, practices, and initiatives operating in counties across the state, with an aim of informing program development, implementation of best and innovative practices, collaboration and knowledge exchange, and policy change designed to generate cost savings and achieve public health and safety goals. The project focused on prosecutors because of their unique position to convene partnerships and build collaborative solutions to local criminal justice problems, and because of their flexibility to influence and implement policies and strategies appropriate for the populations and crime patterns of their jurisdictions. A number of observations emerged from the survey analysis: 1. Programs define their goals not only through treatment and justice lenses, but also through individual and system lenses. 2. Most programs limit eligibility based on justice criteria - namely, offense or criminal history - and many are limited to first-time offenses. 3. Jurisdictions take advantage of available statutory options, and collaborate across agencies to develop programs. 4. Jurisdictions explore diversion alternatives throughout the justice system continuum, and the prosecutorial stage offers many opportunities for intercept. 5. Most programs access clinical services, and many access other supportive services. However, many were not able to reportthe use of evidence-based practices. 6. Programs use a variety of funding mechanisms, and many rely on local budgets and participant fees. 7. While many programs report outcomes, in most cases those outcomes do not rise to a statistical measure that can be analyzed or compared on level footing with other programs. Eight recommendations emerged from this analysis that are intended to guide criminal justice system practitioners and other stakeholders in the development, implementation, expansion, replication, and improvement of diversion programs. The recommendations are also intended to inform and motivate policymaker discussions and decisions, as diversion programs continue to proliferate and drive the next wave of criminal justice reform. 1. Incorporate research findings and evidence-based practices into diversion programs. 2. Apply resources to individuals and programs with potential to achieve the greatest impact. 3. Incorporate community-based behavioral health and social services into diversion programs, as appropriate, especially substance use and mental health services. 4. Leverage all available resources for community-based behavioral health and social services, and strongly advocate to protect and expand them. 5. Adopt standardized program goals, outcome and performance measures, and terminology. 6. Adopt standardized data collection and analysis models and mechanisms. 7. Develop a web-based, searchable directory of diversion programs in Illinois. 8. Develop opportunities for cross-system education,training, and technical assistance available to jurisdictions for the purpose of establishing, expanding, and improving prosecutorial diversion programs. The amplification of diversion as a viable and useful justice practice suggests new promise to transform encumbered systems and bring a culture of restoration to lives, families, and communities that have been eroded by justice system involvement. As a growing field, there are many opportunities for improvement in diversion practices-in how programs are designed, implemented, and evaluated; in how data are collected and shared; and in ensuring that community services are available and accessible for those who need them, and as soon as they need them. These recommendations offer a pathway toward realizing that new promise. Details: Chicago: Author, 2017. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2019 at: http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/publications/IL-ProsecutorialDiversionSurvey-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/publications/IL-ProsecutorialDiversionSurvey-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 155516 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-Based CorrectionsCriminal Justice ReformDiversion ProgramsProsecutorial DiversionProsecutors |
Author: Choi, John J. Title: Prosecutors and Frequent Utilizers: How Can Prosecutors Better Address the Needs of People Who Frequently Interact with the Criminal Justice and Other Social Systems? Summary: Criminal justice involvement is often the culmination of unmet needs, according to an increasing body of research, testimony, and other evidence. For many individuals who are arrested and charged, a combination of challenges - including mental illness, substance use, poverty, and trauma - can lead to frequent stays in the local jail, emergency room, and homeless shelter. But very few of these stays lead to adequate care or address long-term needs. Rather, social systems - criminal justice, health, and housing, for example - traditionally exist in silos and operate on an "event-by-event basis," with little coordination between them about how to address the overlapping populations they serve. For those who cycle between these systems, often referred to as "frequent utilizers," these stays offer few off-ramps from the criminal justice system or long-term resources. For jurisdictions, this results in an ineffective use of public funds and an inadequate response to the needs of frequent utilizers and their communities. While practitioners, policymakers, academics, and people directly impacted have described this cycle for years, innovations in data and technology offer new avenues to better understand and address the needs of those who frequently interact with the criminal justice and other social systems. Through collaboration between criminal justice stakeholders, service providers, community organizations, and researchers, jurisdictions across the country are harnessing the power of data to develop new strategies to combat this cycle, invest in long-term solutions, and better meet the needs of frequent utilizers and their communities Details: New York: Institute for innovation in Prosecution at John Jay College, 2019. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2019 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c4fbee5697a9849dae88a23/t/5c6dd3271905f41e5f8636a3/1550701352414/IIP+ES+Prosecutors+and+Frequent+Utilizers.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c4fbee5697a9849dae88a23/t/5c6dd3271905f41e5f8636a3/1550701352414/IIP+ES+Prosecutors+and+Frequent+Utilizers.pdf Shelf Number: 155880 Keywords: Mentally Ill PersonsPovertyProsecutorsRepeat OffendersSocial Service ProvidersSubstance Abuse |