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

studies drug <strong>of</strong>fenders have been statistically linked with high rates <strong>of</strong> recidivism (Greenwood and
Abrahamse 1982; Wish and Johnson 1986), and it was expected to be a significant predictor in this study
as well. One possible explanation for its non-significance here is <strong>the</strong> high number <strong>of</strong> three-strike
candidates in this study which have had at least one prior drug conviction. Out <strong>of</strong> 254 cases (2 cases had
missing data), 149 or 58.7% indicated <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> a drug conviction. Because so many three-strike
<strong>of</strong>fenders have had prior drug problems, it is very likely that prosecutors are not considering drug abuse to
be an important criterion in determining which defendants should qualify for discretionary treatment.
Model 2
<strong>The</strong> second subgrouping <strong>of</strong> variables concentrated in Model 2 tests <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> discretion against
variables related to <strong>the</strong> mitigating characteristics <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> defendant and <strong>the</strong> case as presented through <strong>the</strong>
presence <strong>of</strong> specific moderating factors. Once again, <strong>the</strong> dependent variable is <strong>the</strong> prosecutor’s decision
to strike a strike. This time, however, <strong>the</strong> independent variables include: no history <strong>of</strong> violence (coded by
<strong>the</strong> prosecutor based upon an assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> defendant’s criminal history), no history <strong>of</strong> weapons
possession or use (also coded by <strong>the</strong> prosecutor based upon criminal history information), documented
history <strong>of</strong> mental illness (coded by <strong>the</strong> prosecutor if a legal determination <strong>of</strong> mental instability has been
made), pro<strong>of</strong> problems (noted by <strong>the</strong> prosecutor if <strong>the</strong> defendant’s prior strikes are not properly
documented, and <strong>the</strong>refore are unable to be proven in court), serious medical condition (noted by <strong>the</strong>
prosecutor if <strong>the</strong> defendant appears to be suffering from a chronic or terminal debilitating condition), and
mitigating personal characteristics (coded by <strong>the</strong> prosecutor if <strong>the</strong> defendant appears to have a supportive
family, steady employment record, or a pattern <strong>of</strong> successful completion <strong>of</strong> parole). <strong>The</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis,
variable list, and expected directions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> logit coefficients for Model 2 are summarized in Figure 3.
29