The effect of the election of prosecutors on criminal trials

Abstract

We examine whether elections of public prosecutors influence the mix of cases taken to trial versus plea bargained. A theoretical model is constructed wherein voters use outcomes of the criminal justice system as a signal of prosecutors’ quality, leading to a distortion in the mix of cases taken to trial. Using data from North Carolina we test whether reelection pressures lead to (a) an increase in the number and proportion of convictions from jury trials and (b) a decrease in the average sanction obtained in both jury trials and pleas. Our empirical findings are consistent with our theoretical predictions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The three states that do not elect public prosecutors are Alaska, Connecticut, and New Jersey (Perry 2006).

  2. 2.

    We assume that the choices of whether to file charges and which charges to file have already been made.

  3. 3.

    The analysis is unaffected if one assumes that s=s(θ), where \(\frac{ds}{d\theta}\geq0\).

  4. 4.

    Assuming different costs of trials for the two parties does not make any substantive change in the analysis.

  5. 5.

    See McCannon (2013) for an analysis of the effect of prosecutor elections on mistakes and appeal[s].

  6. 6.

    With the assumption that p q (θ)s and g(θ) are continuous functions and c is bounded from above, the intermediate value theorem guarantees that these thresholds (and all thresholds derived throughout the analysis) exist.

  7. 7.

    This setup is similar to the incumbent-challenger models of political agency, which consider the reelection motives of political leaders (Besley 2006). It is possible to make b type-dependent as well, i.e., a better prosecutor could also enjoy higher utility in period 2 because society’s welfare is higher. As it does not change the primary predictions of the model, such complications are not presented.

  8. 8.

    www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Councils/spac/Publication/Statistical/Annual.

  9. 9.

    In fact, the National Center for State Courts ranks North Carolina as having the most “mandatory” of sentencing guidelines in the country.

  10. 10.

    The size of the gap between the minimum and maximum sanction is fixed by the sentencing guidelines. Thus, only the maximum is considered here.

  11. 11.

    www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/population_estimates/county_estimates.shtm provides the data and a description of the estimation procedures used.

  12. 12.

    Labor market data are obtained from www.nces.com. The labor force participation rate is statistically insignificant in the results and, hence, is omitted. Furthermore, minor issues arising from the merging of the data, such as aggregating county-level data into district-level observations and public financing issues are discussed in detail in an online appendix (http://faculty.sbu.edu/bmccannon/supplement.htm).

  13. 13.

    www.sboe.state.nc.us.

  14. 14.

    The conviction data cover fiscal years beginning on July 1. Since the general election is in November of the calendar year, the election is recorded in our data as being in the same year if the general election falls within the fiscal year. This implies, though, that the primaries occur in the prior year within the dataset.

  15. 15.

    The first two columns include all socio-economic controls. The third and fourth columns include the sentencing guideline controls along with population density. The specification with never as the independent variable and the average maximum sanction as the dependent variable is omitted because of never’s statistical insignificance.

References

  1. Bandyopadhyay, S., & McCannon, B. C. (2014). Prosecutorial retention: signalling by trial. Journal of Public Economic Theory (forthcoming).

  2. Bandyopadhyay, S., & Oak, M. (2010). Conflict and leadership: when is there a hawkish drift in policy? Working paper.

  3. Berdejo, C., & Yuchtman, N. (2010). Crime, punishment, and politics: an analysis of political cycles in criminal sentencing. Working paper.

  4. Besley, T. (2006). Principled agents? The political economy of good government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boylan, R. T. (2005). What do prosecutors maximize? Evidence from careers of US. Attorneys. American Law and Economics Review, 7(2), 379–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boylan, R. T., & Long, C. X. (2005). Salaries, plea rates, and the career objectives of federal prosecutors. The Journal of Law & Economics, 48(2), 627–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Burke, A. (2007). Prosecutorial passion, cognitive bias, and plea bargaining. Marquette Law Review, 91(1), 183–211.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Farmer, A., & Pecorino, P. (2002). Pretrial bargaining with self-serving bias and asymmetric information. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 48(2), 163–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Glaesar, E. L., Daniel, P., Kessler, D. P., & Piehl, A. M. (2000). What do prosecutors maximize? An analysis of the federalization of drug crimes. American Law and Economics Review, 2(2), 259–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gordon, S.C., & Huber, G. (2002). Citizen oversight and the electoral incentives of criminal prosecutors. American Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 334–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hanssen, F. A. (1999). The effect of judicial institutions on uncertainty and the rate of litigation: the election versus appointment of state judges. The Journal of Legal Studies, 28(1), 205–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hanssen, F. A. (2000). Independent courts and administrative agencies: an empirical analysis of the states. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 16(2), 534–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Landes, W. M. (1971). An economic analysis of the courts. The Journal of Law & Economics, 14(1), 61–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Leaver, C. (2009). Bureaucratic minimal squawk behavior: theory and evidence from regulatory agencies. The American Economic Review, 99(3), 572–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lim, C. S. H. (2013). Preferences and incentives of appointed and elected public officials: evidence from state trial court judges. The American Economic Review, 103(4), 1360–1397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Majumdar, S., & Mukand, S. W. (2004). Policy gambles. The American Economic Review, 94(4), 1207–1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. McCannon, B. C. (2013). Prosecutor elections, mistakes, and appeals. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10(4), 697–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Perry, S. W. (2006). Prosecutors in state courts, 2005. Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice

  19. Rasmusen, E., Raghav, M., & Ramseyer, M. (2009). Convictions versus conviction rates: the prosecutor’s choice. American Law and Economics Review, 11(1), 47–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rogoff, K. S. (1990). Equilibrium political budget cycles. The American Economic Review, 80(1), 21–36.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rogoff, K. S., & Siebert, A. (1988). Elections and macroeconomic policy cycles. Review of Economic Studies, 55(181), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Shepherd, J. M. (2009). The influence of retention politics on judges’ voting. The Journal of Legal Studies, 38(1), 169–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Shotts, K., & Wiseman, A. (2010). The politics of investigations and regulatory enforcement by independent agents and cabinet appointees. The Journal of Politics, 72(1), 209–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Simmons, R. (2004). Election of local prosecutors. ElectionLaw@Moritz. Available from http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/ebook/part7/elections_prosecutors.html, Accessed 15 June, 2013.

  25. Wright, R. F. (2009). How prosecutor elections fail us. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6(2), 649–660.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the chief editor, associate editor, three anonymous referees, Juste Abramovaite, Toke Aidt, Ralph Bailey, Anindya Banerjee, Marco Barassi, Matthew Cole, Allin Cottrell, Valentina Dimitrova-Grajzl, Rob Elliott, Rosa Ferrer, Amanda Griffith, Andy Hanssen, Toby Kendall, Clare Leaver, Tito Pietra, Peter Postl, and seminar participants at the University of Birmingham, the University of Sassari, St. Bonaventure University, and the Workshop on Law, Economics, and Institutions for their comments and suggestions.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bryan C. McCannon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bandyopadhyay, S., McCannon, B.C. The effect of the election of prosecutors on criminal trials. Public Choice 161, 141–156 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-013-0144-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Crime
  • Election
  • Plea bargaining
  • Prosecutor
  • Trials