NCJ Number
52543
Date Published
1978
Length
20 pages
Annotation
AN ANALYTICAL MODEL IS PRESENTED WHICH EXAMINES FACTORS INFLUENCING THE USE OF DISCRETIONARY DECISIONMAKING BY COURT AND CORRECTIONS PERSONNEL. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT DECISIONS MADE BY TRAINED PERSONS WILL BE UPHELD.
Abstract
AFTER EXAMINING THE FAILURE OF THE UNITED STATES CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO LOWER CRIME RATES, IT IS STATED THAT COURTS AND CORRECTIONS AGENCIES ARE UNABLE TO HANDLE THEIR WORKLOADS AND ARE BEING ASKED TO EXERT SOCIAL CONTROL FORMERLY APPLIED BY THE FAMILY, COMMUNITY, AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS. THE INCORPORATION OF MORE DISCRETIONARY DECISIONMAKING INTO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS RECOMMENDED AS A MEANS OF DECREASING THE WORKLOAD CAUSED BY CUMBERSOME AND TIME-CONSUMING PROCEDURES AND BY THE BURDEN OF SOCIAL CONTROL TASKS. A MODEL IS THEN PRESENTED WHICH EXAMINES VARIOUS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE USE OF DISCRETIONARY DECISIONMAKING WITHIN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. THESE FACTORS INCLUDE THE PUBLIC FEAR OF CRIME, LACK OF CONFIDENCE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, CONFLICTING THEORIES OF CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, EXCESSIVE CASE LOADS, AND CITIZEN CONCERN WITH DUE PROCESS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES HAVE NOT YET RESOLVED THE THEORETICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN TREATMENT AND PUNISHMENT. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THIS CONFLICT MUST BE RESOLVED, THAT APPROPRIATE DUE PROCESS SAFEGUARDS MUST BE DESIGNED, AND THAT PERSONNEL MUST RECEIVE THOROUGH TRAINING BEFORE JUDGES AND THE PUBLIC GAIN CONFIDENCE IN THE DISCRETIONARY DECISIONMAKING PROCESS. ONCE SUCH CONFIDENCE IS ESTABLISHED, DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS MAY REDUCE CASELOADS AND LIMIT APPEALS, AND THUS GIVE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM A CHANCE TO FUNCTION MORE EFFECTIVELY. REFERENCES ARE APPENDED. (GLR)