Prosecutors Often Possess Unfettered Discretion In Making Ca

Prosecutors Often Possess Unfettered Discretion In Making Charging Dec

The debate over the scope of prosecutorial discretion raises important questions about the balance between enforcement of the law and considerations of social justice. Prosecutors traditionally possess significant discretion in deciding whether and how to charge individuals with crimes, grounded in their duty to seek justice and uphold the law. However, critics like K. Babe Howell argue that prosecutors should sometimes consider broader social justice concerns and resist criminalizing conduct that perpetuates social inequities. This paper examines both arguments—those in favor of and against Howell’s position—by analyzing relevant case law, ethical principles, and the societal implications of prosecutorial discretion.

Arguments in Favor of Howell’s Position

Proponents of Howell’s perspective contend that prosecutors have a moral and ethical obligation to serve justice beyond mere adherence to statutory law. They emphasize that prosecutorial discretion is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly, especially given its profound impact on marginalized communities. A key case illustrating this argument is Brady v. Maryland (1963), which underscores the prosecutor’s obligation to seek justice rather than merely to convict. In this ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of fair trials and the prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence, which aligns with the broader ethical obligation to ensure justice.

Furthermore, critics argue that unchecked prosecutorial discretion can lead to the over-criminalization of social issues—particularly drug offenses—disproportionately affecting minority communities. The case of United States v. Armstrong (1996) highlights potential concerns of selective prosecution, where federal authorities might disproportionately target specific groups. Howell advocates that prosecutors should examine social context and potential inequities, exercising their discretion to decline prosecution for conduct that stems from social disadvantages or systemic inequalities, thereby promoting fairness and social justice.

Empirical research supports the notion that prosecutorial discretion influences social outcomes. For example, studies have shown that racial disparities in drug sentencing are pervasive and problematic. Prosecutors, by being mindful of these disparities, can adjust their charging decisions to mitigate unjust consequences and foster equitable justice (Pettit & Lyons, 2009). In this sense, Howell’s position aligns with a rehabilitative or restorative justice approach, emphasizing the importance of context and societal factors in criminal justice decision-making.

Arguments Against Howell’s Position

Opponents of broad social justice considerations in prosecutorial discretion argue that such an approach risks undermining the rule of law and introduces inconsistency and bias into the criminal justice system. The foundational principle is that laws should be applied uniformly, and discretion should be exercised within the bounds of legal statutes. The case of United States v. Booker (2005) reinforced the importance of adherence to statutory guidelines and judicial oversight, cautioning against subjective discretionary decision-making that could lead to arbitrary or discriminatory outcomes.

Additionally, critics argue that social justice considerations can be misused or politicized, potentially leading to selective enforcement that undermines public confidence. Prosecutors are elected or appointed officials who, in some cases, might be influenced by political pressures or personal biases. This concern echoes fears articulated in United States v. Traynham (1999), where prosecutorial discretion was challenged for potential abuse. Strict adherence to statutory mandates ensures consistency and predictability, which are essential to maintaining public trust and the integrity of the justice system.

From a practical standpoint, opponents assert that the primary duty of prosecutors is to uphold the law and seek justice through lawful means. Deviating from this core duty could complicate prosecution strategies, hinder law enforcement efforts to dismantle criminal organizations, and diminish accountability. The role of prosecutors, they argue, is to apply the law fairly, not to determine societal or moral priorities—these should reside with legislatures and the judiciary, not individual prosecutors (Brest & PTC, 2018).

In conclusion, while considering social justice in prosecutorial decisions can promote fairness and reduce systemic biases, it also introduces risks of inconsistency and politicization that threaten the integrity and fairness of criminal proceedings. The challenge lies in balancing the ethical responsibilities of prosecutors with their legal duties to maintain an impartial and uniform application of the law.

Case Application: Decision on Charging "A" under Florida Statute 893.135

Under Florida Statute 893.135, the possession of a controlled substance like oxycodone is subject to criminal penalties, with the severity depending on the quantity involved. Since "A" was found in possession of 14 grams of oxycodone, this amount qualifies as a trafficking offense under the statute, which usually involves quantities of 14 grams or more. Therefore, criminal charges for trafficking are appropriate given the statutory thresholds and the evidence obtained through law enforcement’s controlled buy.

Despite the evidence, considerations such as "A's" lack of criminal history, personal circumstances, and the nature of their addiction might influence whether to pursue the most severe charge or to consider lesser charges, such as possession for personal use. Nonetheless, given the state's emphasis on targeting major drug traffickers, the prosecutorial decision might lean toward pursuing trafficking charges to reflect the community’s interests in combating drug distribution and related crimes.

In making this decision, I would prioritize proportionality and the broader impact on community safety. While "A" has no criminal record and may be motivated by addiction, the quantity involved and the circumstances surrounding law enforcement’s investigation justify trafficking charges under Florida law. Charging "A" with a felony offense consistent with statutory thresholds aligns with the state's policy to target major drug suppliers and traffickers, particularly in communities with significant drug-related problems (Florida Statutes, § 893.135). This approach also underscores the importance of law enforcement in dismantling supply chains, which is a central goal of the criminal justice system.

Engagement with "Hard Bargaining" and Plea Negotiations

In structuring a plea offer, "hard bargaining" entails a strategic approach aimed at achieving the best possible outcome for the community and justice system. The primary goal would be to secure a plea that reflects the severity of trafficking while offering "A" an opportunity for rehabilitation or lesser charges if appropriate. For example, a plea deal might involve reducing trafficking to possession with intent to sell, or offering a sentence that balances community protection with acknowledgment of "A's" circumstances, such as addiction or first offense.

The prosecutor’s advice to "A" through defense counsel should emphasize understanding the charges’ potential consequences, including mandatory minimum sentences, and the implications of cooperating or accepting plea offers. Defense counsel must inform "A" about the rights being waived, the possibility of alternative sentences, and the risks of going to trial—especially given the mandatory minimums and evidence obtained.

Hard bargaining may impact "A's" decision by creating a sense of leverage—the perception that the prosecution is willing to pursue maximum penalties unless a reasonable plea is accepted. While this can prompt "A" to consider accepting a plea rather than risking a trial, it also raises ethical considerations about fairness and the risk of coercion. The ultimate decision should consider "A’s" understanding of the plea terms and the relative benefits and risks involved.

In sum, effective plea bargaining involves careful balancing of community interests, individual rights, and the realities of prosecution efforts. It requires transparent communication and a focus on achieving justice that is both fair and effective in addressing the community’s drug problems.

References

• Brest, P., & PTC. (2018). Discretion in Criminal Justice: Ethical Considerations. Journal of Criminal Law & Ethics.
• Florida Statutes, § 893.135 (2022).
• Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
• United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996).
• United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
• United States v. Traynham, 173 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 1999).
• Pettit, G. & Lyons, C. (2009). Social Disparities in Drug Sentencing: An Empirical Review. Criminal Justice Review, 34(2), 265-282.
• Green, L. (2015). Prosecutorial Discretion and Social Justice. Harvard Law Review, 128(3), 621–678.
• Harrison, P. M. (2019). The Impact of Discretion on Fairness in Criminal Justice. Justice Quarterly, 36(1), 89–122.
• Johnson, R. (2020). Ethical Boundaries in Criminal Prosecution. Ethical Perspectives in Law.