PROSECUTION AND SENTENCING DECISIONS (FROM DECISION-MAKING IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM - REVIEWS AND ESSAYS, 1975, BY DON M GOTTFREDSON - SEE NCJ-31371)

• NCJ Number: 55592
• Author(s): D M GOTTFREDSON
• Date Published: 1975
• Length: 6 pages
• Corporate Author: US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

DECISIONS IN PROSECUTION AND SENTENCING ARE IDENTIFIED AND ATTENDANT PROBLEMS ARE BRIEFLY CONSIDERED AS A PREFACE TO MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION IN SUBSEQUENT CHAPTERS.

Abstract

ONCE A PERSON HAS BEEN ARRESTED, A VARIETY OF DECISIONS MAY BE MADE BEFORE THAT PERSON LEAVES THE ADJUDICATORY SYSTEM OR IS SENTENCED. A 1973 STUDY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY CALIF., IDENTIFIED THESE BASIC DECISION POINTS: (1) THE DECISION BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ON WHETHER OR NOT TO FILE FELONY CHARGES; (2) THE DECISION BY THE MUNICIPAL COURT AS TO WHETHER THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE HELD TO ANSWER ON FELONY CHARGES, SHOULD BE DISMISSED, OR SHOULD BE TREATED AS A MISDEMEANOR; (3) THE OFFERING OF INDUCEMENTS BY THE PROSECUTOR OR THE COURT TO ENCOURAGE A GUILTY PLEA; (4) THE DECISION BY THE DEFENDANT ON WHETHER TO PLEAD GUILTY, SUBMIT ON THE TRANSCRIPT, OR GO TO TRIAL BEFORE A JUDGE OR JURY; AND (5) THE FINDING OF THE COURT AS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCE. A GENERAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM IS DESCRIBED WHICH CAN AID THE PROSECUTOR IN DECISIONMAKING IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS: (1) THE RAPID IDENTIFICATION OF THE MORE SERIOUS CASES, (2) THE PROVISION OF CONTROL OF SCHEDULING IMPEDIMENTS TO THE ADJUDICATION OF CASES ON THEIR MERITS, (3) THE ENABLING OF MONITORING AND ENFORCING OF EVENHANDEDNESS AND CONSISTENCY IN THE EXERCISE OF PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, AND (4) PROVISION OF A DATA BASE FOR RESEARCH ON PROSECUTION DECISIONMAKING. THE SENTENCING IS AT PRESENT GUIDED UNSYSTEMATICALLY BY OFTEN CONFLICTING GOALS OF PUNISHMENT, REHABILITATION, COMMUNITY PROTECTION, DETERRENCE, AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT. WHILE THE COURTS TYPICALLY KEEP RECORDS OF SENTENCING DECISIONS, THEY ORDINARILY DO NOT RECORD THE EVENTUAL OUTCOME OF THE ACTUAL SENTENCE. AS A RESULT, INFORMATION ON THE RELEVANCE OF MOST OF THE ASSEMBLED CASE DATA TO RATIONAL DECISIONMAKING IN SENTENCING IS UNAVAILABLE. THUS, THE JUDGE MAY HAVE EXHAUSTIVE DATA PRESENTED IN A PRESENTENCE REPORT WITH FEW EMPIRICALLY BASED CRITERIA FOR HOW TO SENTENCE IN LIGHT OF THE DATA. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)