Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 317–333 | Cite as

Charge reduction: An analysis of prosecutorial discretion in burglary and robbery cases

  • Celesta A. Albonetti
Article

Abstract

Although a substantial number of researchers have studied charge reductions taking place within the context of guilty plea negotiations, few have focused on estimating the determinants of charge reductions taking place at the initial screening decision. The prosecutor's decision to reduce original felony charges to a misdemeanor has serious social, legal, and economic consequences for the suspect. This paper presents a model of the variables affecting the likelihood of such a reduction in burglary and robbery offenses. Drawing from Littrell's “principled charging” perspective and earlier research on labeling, the analysis involves estimating logistic regression equations specifying both main and interaction effects of the suspect's gender and race and variables related to suspect character, case seriousness, and legal seriousness. Partial support is found for Littrell's perspective.

Key words

charge reduction prosecutorial discretion logit analysis interaction effects 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albonetti, C. A. (1987). Prosecutorial discretion: The effects of uncertainty.Law Soc. Rev. 2l: 291–313.Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich, J. H., and Nelson, F. D. (1984).Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  3. Bernstein, I. N., Kick, E., Leung, J. T., and Schulz, B. (1977). Charge reduction: An intermediary stage in the process of labelling criminal defendants.Social Forces 56: 363–384.Google Scholar
  4. Bishop, D. M., and Frazier, C. E. (1984). The effects of gender on charge reduction.Sociol. Q. 25: 385–396.Google Scholar
  5. Blumberg, A. (1967). The practice of law as a confidence game: Organizational cooptation of a profession.Law and Society Review 15: 15–20.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, K., and Shaut, M. H. (1976). Note: The use of mandamus to control prosecutorial discretion.Am. Crim. Law Rev. 13: 563–597.Google Scholar
  7. Cole, O. (1970). The decision to prosecute.Law Soc. Rev. 4: 331–344.Google Scholar
  8. Cox, S. (1976). Prosecutorial discretion: An overview.Am. Crim. Law Rev. 3: 383–434.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, K. C. (1969).Discretionary Justice, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.Google Scholar
  10. Dworkin, R. M. (1977). Is law a system of rules? In Dworkin, R. M. (ed.),The Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  11. Eisenstein, J., and Jacob, H. (1977).Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts, Little & Brown Co., Boston.Google Scholar
  12. Feeney, F., Dill, F., and Weir, A. (1983). Arrests without conviction: How often they occur and why? U.S. Department of Justice Report, National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  13. Figueria-McDonough, J. (1985). Gender differences in informal processing: A look at charge bargaining and sentence reduction in Washington, D.C.J. Res, Crime Delinq. 22: 101–133.Google Scholar
  14. Hanushek, E. A., and Jackson, J. E. (1977).Statistical Methods for Social Scientists, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Holmes, M. D., Daudistel, H. C., and Farrell, R. A. (1987). Determinants of charge reductions and final dispositions in cases of burglary and robbery.J. Res. Crime Delinq. 24: 233–254.Google Scholar
  16. Hosmer, D. W., and Lemeshow, S. (1989).Applied Logistic Regression, John Wiley & Son, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Jacoby, J. (1980).The American Prosecutor: A Search for Identity, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.Google Scholar
  18. LaFave, W. R. (1970). The prosecutor's discretion in the United States.Am. J. Comp. Law 18: 532–548.Google Scholar
  19. Littrell, W. B. (1979).Bureaucratic Justice: Police, Prosecutors, and Plea Bargaining, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  20. McDonald, D. F. (1979). From plea negotiation to coercive justice: Notes on the respecification of a concept.Law Soc. Rev. 13: 385–392.Google Scholar
  21. McHugh, P. (1970). A common-sense conception of deviance. In Douglas, J. D. (ed.),Deviance and Respectability, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Miller, F. (1970).Prosecution: The Decision to Charge a Suspect with a Crime, Little, Brown, Boston.Google Scholar
  23. Miller, H. S., McDonald, W. F., and Cramer, J. A. (1978). Plea bargaining in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice report, National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  24. Milner, N. (1971).The Court and Local Law Enforcement, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  25. Nardulli, P., Eisenstein, J., and Flemming, R. B. (1988).The Tenor of Justice, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  26. Neubauer, D. (1978). After the arrest: The charging decision in Prairie City. In Atkins, B., and Pogrebin, M. (eds.),The Invisible Justice System: Discretion and the Law, Anderson, Cincinnati.Google Scholar
  27. Petersen, T. (1985). A comment on presenting results from logit and probit models.Am. Sociol. Rev. 50: 130–131.Google Scholar
  28. Ross, H. L. (1970).Settled Out of Court: The Social Process of Insurance Claims Adjustments, Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
  29. Sudnow, D. (1964). Normal crimes: Sociological features of the penal code in a public defender office.Social Problems 12: 255–276.Google Scholar
  30. Thomas, C. W., and Fitch, W. A. (1976). Prosecutorial decision making.Am. Crim. Law Rev. 13: 507–559.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Celesta A. Albonetti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station

Personalised recommendations