NCJ Number
31750
Journal
NLADA Briefcase Volume: 33 Issue: 1 Dated: (JUNE 1975) Pages: 137-145
Date Published
1975
Length
9 pages
Annotation
AFTER REVIEWING AND CIRITICIZING THE ISSUES AND SELECTION CRITERIA ASSOCIATED WITH PROSECUTORIAL AND THIRD-PARTY DIVERSION PROGRAMS, THE AUTHOR PROPOSE THAT INCREASED ATTENTION BE GIVEN TO DEFENDER-OPERATED DIVERSION.
Abstract
THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STANDARDS ON THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE ROLES IN DIVERSION OFFERED BY SEVERAL PROMINENT COMMISSION AND ASSOCIATIONS ARE REVIEWED. THE AUTHORS CONCLUDE THAT BOTH PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE ARE DEEMED TO HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR CONSIDERING DIVERSIONARY ALTERNATIVES. IT IS NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT CONSIDERABLE RESISTANCE HAS BEEN OFFERED TO THE IDEA OF DEFENDEROPERATED DIVERSION. THE POSSIBLE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROSECUTION-OPERATED DIVERSION ON THE DEFENDANTS' RIGHTS AND THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE RESULTS OF OFFERING PROSECUTOR AND THIRD PARTY DIVERSION TO AN EXTREMELY LIMITED GROUP OF NONSERIOUS OFFENDERS ARE DISCUSSED. THE AUTHORS CONCLUDE THAT DIVERSION CAN BE LEGITIMATELY OFFERED BY PROSECUTOR, DEFENDER AND THIRD PARTY ORGANIZATIONS. DEFENDER ORGANIZATIONS COULD BE THE PROVIDER OF 'LAST RESORT' DIVERSION SERVICES, OFFERING DIVERSION TO THOSE NOT NORMALLY CONSIDERED AND PROVIDING DIVERSION AT THE POST ADJUDICATION, PRESENTENCING STAGE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)