“In the Furtherance of Justice”: The Effect of Discretion on the ...

Recommendations

Info

Petty <strong>the</strong>ft with a prior <strong>the</strong>ft-related <strong>of</strong>fense Possession <strong>of</strong> marijuana Possession <strong>of</strong> controlled substance Indecent exposure with a prior <strong>of</strong>fense Table 4: Offense Severity Scale Representative Offense Sentence Range Severity Level CA status Battery against a police <strong>of</strong>ficer Failure to register as sex <strong>of</strong>fender with prior <strong>of</strong>fense Possession <strong>of</strong> purchase for sale <strong>of</strong> controlled substance Involuntary manslaughter Grand <strong>the</strong>ft with firearm Attempted simple robbery or residential burglary Residential burglary (1 st degree) Simple robbery Armed robbery Robbery (1 st degree) Forcible rape Arson <strong>of</strong> inhabited structure Assault with deadly weapon (with GBI) Robbery <strong>of</strong> home or person using ATM machine Voluntary Manslaughter Kidnapping (when victim is under age 14) 25 Jail or Prison (Indeterminate) Prison (Indeterminate) Prison (16mo — 3 yrs) Prison (2 – 6 yrs) Prison (16mo — 3 yrs) Prison (2 – 6 yrs) Prison (3 – 7 yrs) Prison (3 – 8 yrs) Prison (3 – 9 yrs) Prison (3 – 11 yrs) Murder (2 nd degree) Prison (15-Life) Murder (1 st degree) Prison (25-Life) Kidnapping (so as to commit robbery, rape, or sodomy) Prison (Life with parole) Murder (1 st degree with special circumstances) Prison (Life w/o parole or Death) Table 5: Frequency <strong>of</strong> Severity Rankings (Current Offense) Current Offense Severity (Count 1)* Frequency Percentage Offense Type 1 105 41.02% Wobbler 2 41 16.02% Non-serious 3 1 0.39% Non-serious 4 52 20.30% Non-serious 5 1 0.39% Serious 6 46 17.97% Serious 7 2 0.78% Serious 8 2 0.78% Serious 9 1 0.39% Serious 10 1 0.39% Serious 11 1 0.39% Serious 12 3 1.17% Serious * Count 1 is <strong>the</strong> most severe <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> current charges 1 Wobbler 2 Non-serious 3 Non-serious 4 Non-serious 5 Serious 6 Serious 7 Serious 8 Serious 9 Serious 10 Serious 11 Serious 12 Serious 13 Serious 14 Serious
Strike Offense Severity (Strike 1) Table 6: Frequency <strong>of</strong> Severity Rankings (Strike Offenses) Frequency Percentage Strike Offense Severity (Strike 2) 26 Frequency Percentage Offense Type 5 2 0.79% 5 17 6.72% Serious 6 158 62.45% 6 193 76.28% Serious 7 24 9.49% 7 15 5.93% Serious 8 23 9.09% 8 12 4.74% Serious 9 31 12.25% 9 14 5.53% Serious 10 6 2.37% 10 0 0.00% Serious 11 2 0.79% 11 1 0.40% Serious 12 3 1.19% 12 1 0.40% Serious 13 4 1.58% 13 0 0.00% Serious Data for each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> statistical models was analyzed using logistic regression, employing a standard logit equation: logit P = b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + … +bkXk where P is <strong>the</strong> dependent variable, X 1— Xk are <strong>the</strong> independent variables, and b0— bk are coefficients generated by <strong>the</strong> model. To test <strong>the</strong> crime control motivation <strong>of</strong> prosecutors, <strong>the</strong> bivariate dependent variable “DA <strong>Discretion</strong>” was tested against a group <strong>of</strong> independent variables broken down into three categories, each representing a separate subgrouping <strong>of</strong> related components. <strong>The</strong> first <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> three subgroups, Model 1, consists <strong>of</strong> variables related to <strong>the</strong> increased likelihood <strong>of</strong> recidivism by <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fender. It is expected that prosecutors are more likely to use prosecutorial discretion when <strong>the</strong> likelihood <strong>of</strong> recidivism is reduced. <strong>The</strong> bivariate dependent variable is <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> prosecutorial discretion, as measured by <strong>the</strong> decision to strike a prior strike. <strong>The</strong> independent variables include: time period between <strong>of</strong>fenses (based upon <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> years between <strong>the</strong> last strike and current <strong>of</strong>fense), remote prior strikes (as coded by <strong>the</strong> prosecutor evaluating <strong>the</strong> case using subjective criteria), no recent criminal history (coded by <strong>the</strong> prosecutor, signifying a clean felony record in recent years), prior strikes from same case (cited if strikes arose from <strong>the</strong> same incident), and drug abuse (as measured by previous drug convictions). <strong>The</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis, variable list, and expected directions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> logit coefficients for Model 1 are summarized in Figure 1.
Page 1 and 2: “In the<
Page 3 and 4: well. Today, both prosecutors and j
Page 5 and 6: among leaders, physical punishment
Page 7 and 8: In contrast, the <
Page 9 and 10: Influenced by this institutional ro
Page 11 and 12: The persistence <s
Page 13 and 14: is the seeming lac
Page 15 and 16: the variations in
Page 17 and 18: esponses came from large jurisdicti
Page 19 and 20: Files three-strike charges against
Page 21 and 22: Northern Californi
Page 23 and 24: discretion can be linked back to th
Page 25: Codes §1192.7(c), §1192.8 and §6
Page 29 and 30: strike when prior strikes remote in
Page 31 and 32: Figure 3: Hypothes
Page 33 and 34: Model 3 In Model 3, the</st
Page 35 and 36: The fact that nei<
Page 37 and 38: are by design tied to the</
Page 39 and 40: Abrahamson, Alan. 1996. 25% <strong
Page 41 and 42: Kessler, Daniel and Steven D. Levit
Page 43 and 44: Stith, Kate and Jose A. Cabranes. 1
Page 45 and 46: Administrative Procedure - Three St
Page 47: 13. Given media coverage of

“In the Furtherance of Justice”: The Effect of Discretion on the ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?