Prosecutors Drop Cases example essay topic

Introduction Prosecutors have the most say in what happens to those that are arrested by our CJ system. One the most pressing questions in the CJ system is what should the prosecutor do with all those that are arrested. In order to better understand how prosecutors make their decisions we are going to look into a few different topics, the current issues in Prosecution, Prosecution Policy, and some changes that are taking place in Prosecution. By looking into these areas hopefully we can better understand the decisions of the modern prosecutor. Current issues in Prosecution Prosecutors are faced with many burdens in doing their jobs; they have to appear to be tough on crime, while not overbearing our prison system.

They have to decide which crimes they want to pursue fully and those that they want to plea bargain. Predictors of Conviction and Incarceration Quality of Evidence With only around 38% of those being arrested on felony charges receiving any time behind bars, one has to wonder what is happening to all of the rest. As it turns out around thirty percent of cases that are brought before the prosecutor are dropped by the prosecutor, and about another ten percent are dropped by the judge. With so many cases being dropped by the prosecutor one has to wonder what influences the prosecutors decision in wither or not to take a case. The prosecutor is for the most part not going to take a case that he doesn't feel that he can win. So the biggest factors in the prosecutors decision wither or not to take a case have to deal with the quality of evidence that they are presented with.

If the police are unable to come up with enough quality evidence, it will make it very difficult for the prosecutor to take on the case and see it through. One case that I sat in on was a good example of this. The case involved a case of road rage where one person ended up spitting gum into the hair of the other driver, prompting the other driver to pursue assault charges. The prosecutor originally took on this case believing that there was a photograph of the gum in the hair of the victim, but on the day of the trial the victim no longer had a picture of her with the gum in her hair. After hearing both side of the case the judge ended up dismissing the case due to lack of physical evidence. Triviality of the Crime The second largest reason for a crime being dropped it the triviality of the offence.

If the prosecutor doesn't consider the case as a serious threat to the community they will often drop the case, in the interest of justice. Sometimes a prosecutor will not outright drop the case do to triviality, but instead divert the person charged to some kind of treatment program. Cases such as petty larceny are typically those that are dropped because of triviality. For example, GVSU's Police Department sent a case to the prosecutor involving a stolen GVSU sign valued at $10; the prosecutor refused to the take the case, because it was too petty. Cases Involving Family Members When the victim of a crime is related to the person committing the crime, it is very difficult for the prosecutor to take the case. The problem is that often times the victim is often unwilling to testify against their family member.

Because of the trouble getting people to testify, prosecutors drop cases involving crimes within families at a rate of over 40 percent, almost three times the rate for cases involving strangers. Community Depending on the area that you live also has a large impact on how you are going to be sentenced. If you are in an area that feels very strongly against the abuse of alcohol, you are probably going to be prosecuted at a much higher rate than those in communities that don't feel so strongly. For example if you are caught smoking marijuana in Ann Arbor, you will probably only face a twenty-five dollar civil infraction, while if you committed the same offence in Ottawa county, you are going to look at probation and court fines. Economic Standing The book doesn't really get into the disparity in social / economic standing when it comes in regard to the choice to prosecute or not.

It is my belief that often times the prosecutor will seek out harsher penalties against the poor, since he knows that they will not be able to put up a quality defense. For example if someone was charged with larceny and they were a college student, the prosecuting attorney is likely to plea bargain it out to something that would not stay on their record, because they don't want to hurt the persons record. While if that person was poor, the prosecuting attorney would be much more likely to seek jail time. Sentencing and Sanctions History Prior to the 1980's if you were charged with a crime you really had no idea of how long in jail you should expect.

During this time the sentencing judge had the most power in how long of a sentence you would receive, and since the judge had no guidelines to go by, the judge had full discretion on wither to give you life, or just a week. Because of these problems and some research that rehabilitation programs were not working, caused the legislators to pass sentencing guidelines. These new guidelines limited the amount of discretion that Judges and parole officials had, but they made no change to the discretionary powers of the Prosecuting attorney. Sentencing Choices Although the prison may be the most commonly used place to sentence people to, sometimes there are alternatives that are better for the violator and the community, not to mention cheaper. Some of these alternatives include Community Service, Shock Probation, Intensive Probation Supervision, and Community-Based Corrections. The benefits of using these programs verses sending them to jail are seen on both sides of the equation.

Not only are these programs cheaper, but they also don't carry the stigma that is involved with spending time in prison. Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) is a relatively new option. Ottawa County started using it three years ago. When someone is sentenced to IPS they are essentially sentenced to home arrest, with the exception of going to work and church.

When they are on this program they have to ware a tether, which will set of an alarm if they leave the house, and they have to blow into a Breathalyzer every time an alarm goes off, day or night. The Breathalyzer is set to recognize the person's voice so only they can use it. If the person has been drinking, tries to get someone else to take it for them, or if they don't take it, the Breathalyzer will send a signal to the station to have an officer come to the house. I think this program is a great alternative to incarceration, it is cheaper, and it does not greatly interrupt the person's life, and it will allow the person to continue working. The biggest problem that I can see with this program is that it is a huge burden to those living with the person on IPS, since the Breathalyzer can go off anytime day or night.

Plea Bargaining With thirty five percent of felony cases ending up with a guilt plea, it is no wonder that this is one of the most talked about issue in CJ today. Most of the time people plea guilty with the intention of getting a lighter sentence. Others will plead guilty simply because they have no defense for their charges. Benefits There are many benefits of plea-bargaining, not only for the accused, but also for society as a whole.

As it stands right now if everyone refused to take a plea, the courts would be backed up for years. Not only would the courts be more backed up, but it would also cost more to see every case to trial. By doing plea bargaining it allows the Prosecuting attorney to push more cases through the system faster. It also allows those that have no defense to wave their right to trail, therefore saving them the embarrassment of an open trial. Pleas also allow the prosecutor to offer lighter sentences in trade for information about a more dangerous criminal.

Issues Many people have argued that plea-bargaining is simply wrong and should be gotten rid of. By pleading their case they give up their day in court, when some of them may have won their case during trial. In addition by offering plea-bargains you are taking away the closure that victims receive by seeing a case through to trial. Many people have talked about getting rid of plea-bargaining, but I have not heard of any viable suggestions to replace it. Prosecution Policy and Discretion There are around 2,500 different prosecuting offices in the United States, and none of them are necessarily run the same. Since the constitution says nothing about prosecutorial rules and standards the prosecutor is free to run their office any way that they see fit.

Prosecution Policy Depending on their own beliefs, or on the about of resources that they have available, prosecutors will often set their own prosecution policy. Some offices try for quality convictions by screening out the weaker cases at the screening phase (this would be the type of prosecution that I favor), and then seeing them through to trial. While others try for more convictions by taking on weaker cases, and then putting effort into getting plea bargains in exchange for a lighter sentence. In choice one of these two policies can also be influenced by the quality of evidence that the police department typically gives you. If you are in a jurisdiction that the police department typically gives you poor evidence, choosing a more selective screening policy is probably your best option. Prosecutorial Discretion No prosecutor can give an all-star performance to every case that he receives.

The busier a prosecutor gets the less time he has available to work on the cases he receives. Because of this prosecutors have huge discretion on which cases to pursue, what charges they file, how aggressively they pursue the case, and how much they are willing to give up in a plea bargain. Albert Reiss once say that prosecutors exercise "the greatest discretion in the formally organized criminal justice network". How Prosecutors Use Discretion Just like with an experienced doctor, a prosecutor's discretion is based on both craft and science. Prosecutors will argue that that discretion in handling a case is not something that can be determined by pondering abstract goals, or by consulting some kind of a formula. According to a local prosecutor, he tries to base his discretion on how the outcome will affect the greater community.

If he feels that the crime was petty and that the offender is not likely to commit another crime, he will often seek some kind of probation, or throw out the charges. Issues with discretion The problem with having an almost unchecked level of discretion is that it leaves a lot of room to abuse that discretion. It is argued that prosecutors will often abuse their discretion in cases relating to the poor, and those cases that they feel will enhance their career. It is my belief, based on no hard facts, that prosecutors will often seek harsher penalties for poor street level offenders, than they would for middle class offenders, for the same offence. Using discretion in order to advance your career is not something that is new. Rudolph Giuliani used his discretion when we went after white-collar offenders in the Southern District of N.Y. when he was a U.S. Attorney, during the late eighties, helping him to later become the mayor of N.Y. Changes in Prosecution Almost every area of Criminal justice has changed in some way over the past forty years, from the style of policing, to the level of judicial discretion.

While all other areas of Criminal Justice have seen changes, the changes in Prosecution have been nowhere near as dramatic. The changes in prosecution have been about the same as you would see in almost any other office, with more computers, more women, and more minorities. For the most part the only large advancements in Prosecution have been the added use of forensics to prove cases, mainly by the use of DNA evidence. New Programs Just like every branch of Criminal Justice, Prosecutors have been looking into more proactive approaches to Crime prevention. The problem is that many prosecutors are hesitant to 'shake the boat,' since they are elected officials if they institute a program that either doesn't work, or that the general community doesn't like, they may not get reelected. Instead of looking for change Prosecutors will often try to be perceived as doing a good job, making it much more likely to get reelected.

The other problem is are prosecutors in a better position to position to prevent crime, or is that better left to the police. "Career Criminal" One of the first proactive prosecution programs was the "Career Criminal" program, which was initiated by the Justice Department. The goal of this program was to deal with the few offenders that accounted for a disproportionate amount of offences. In order to provide incentives to Prosecutors to pursue these offenders the Justice Department offered monies to Prosecutors that created a Career Criminal program.

Prosecutors participating in this program would create a separate section of their office in which attorneys would work on fewer cases, but they would follow those cases through all stages of prosecution. This program seamed to be successful, except that it tended to get criminals at the end of their criminal career. After the federal funding ran out, so did these programs. Community Prosecution Modeled after community policing programs, community prosecution tries to move the prosecutors out of the office and into the community, in order to better understand their problems. Community Prosecution programs work by assigning specific prosecutors to specific areas, only taking cases from that area. By doing this, it allows the prosecutor to become more familiar with local problems, and it allows them to better work with local police.

Often times this programs involve moving an assistant prosecutor out into the Neighborhood, often taking up residence in a police precinct, or in a storefront. By moving the prosecutors out into the neighborhoods, it allows the prosecutor to come up with more innovative uses of the law, in order to help the community. For example, if the prosecutor notices that there are a lot of drug trafficking in a particular neighborhood, he may encourage the police to make more arrests, and then prosecute them more heavily. Prospects for Reform With that amount of power available for a prosecutor to ruin a person's reputation, I believe that some safeguards need to be put into place. The book suggests that it could be mandatory for the prosecutor to make public the number of arrests in each neighborhood, by offence category, and the disposition of them at each stage of prosecution.

This would better inform the neighborhood, and make prosecutors decisions public. Conclusion Prosecutors are in the best position to most effect a person's life. This position can be used in any number of ways. It can be used to better serve society, by trying to get repeat offenders off the streets. While at the same time some prosecutors will use their power to try to advance their career by taking more cases that they feel will get them public attention. Often times their decisions end up being a balancing act between what will better serve society, and at the same time not overload the Criminal justice system.