NCJ Number
86756
Date Published
1981
Length
13 pages
Annotation
Discretionary decisionmaking by police, prosecutors, judges, and corrections personnel is essential to prevent system overload and provide for the individualization of criminal justice processing.
Abstract
Formal police discretion involves policy decisions about how resources are to be used; e.g., serious crimes will be given more duty hours than minor crimes and crimes causing a public outcry will receive more attention than those toward which the public is indifferent. Informal police discretion is used by individual officers as they decide whether or not to charge a person. Many detectives, for example, will not charge a drug user if the user will cooperate in identifying the dealer. Also, where it seems obvious that subjecting a person to formal processing will produce more negative than positive consequences for the person without jeopardizing public safety, then the person may be let go with a warning. Another stage of discretionary decisionmaking lies with the prosecutor, who must determine whether or not to proceed with prosecution after arrest, and, if so, under what charge. A prosecutor may decide that a first offender should not be prosecuted or that the evidence in a case is not sufficient to gain a conviction. Further, the prosecutor may engage in plea bargaining with a defendant's attorney to gain a guilty plea under a reduced charge. Judicial discretion lies principally in the determination of a sentence appropriate for the nature of the offense and the needs of the offender, while correctional discretion is exercised in determining security classifications, treatment programs, temporary releases, and parole. Although the exercise of discretion in all of the aforementioned areas is subject to abuse, it is necessary if the criminal justice system is to operate rationally and humanely. Twenty-five notes and five suggested readings are provided.