The black box

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Iowa Law Review Pub Date : 2006-07-05 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.916061
M. Miller, R. Wright
{"title":"The black box","authors":"M. Miller, R. Wright","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.916061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Classic accounts of prosecutorial discretion, from Herbert Wechsler through the present day, portray charging discretion as the antithesis of law. Scholars express particular concerns about racial and other nefarious grounds for prosecution, while others worry about the increased range of choices available to prosecutors when criminal codes become bloated with new crimes. The familiar response to this problem features a call for greater external legal regulation. The external limits might come from judges who review prosecutorial charging decisions, or from legislatures reworking the criminal code. These external oversight projects, however, have failed. This article explores some facets of internal regulation - efforts within prosecutors' offices to control and legitimize prosecutorial discretion. Based on remarkably detailed data from New Orleans and observations from several other major cities, we are able to examine the inner working of prosecutors' offices - the black box - to learn about the reasons prosecutors give for their declinations. The long-delayed arrival of the information age to prosecutors' offices allows us to understand more about the internal regulatory forces within those offices. Our thesis is simple but profound: the internal office policies of thoughtful chief prosecutors can produce the predictable choices, respectful of legal constraints, that lawyers expect from traditional legal regulation. The reasons prosecutors give for their charging decisions show the influence of substantive and procedural legal doctrines and the policy priorities of supervisors - all sources that one would expect to dominate in a system that respects the rule of law. Moreover, these reasons show prosecutors responding to social norms, living up to group expectations about what it means to be a prosecutor in that particular office. The internal norms of prosecutors differ from other social norms recognized and studied by legal scholars because they grow and operate within a government organization. Norms within government organizations are far more susceptible to design changes than social norms in public and private groups. The key virtue of social norms within a prosecutor's office is transparency. Internal regulations deserve respect when they expose the prosecutor's black box to scrutiny and accountability.","PeriodicalId":51610,"journal":{"name":"Iowa Law Review","volume":"94 1","pages":"125-196"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"33","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iowa Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.916061","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 33

Abstract

Classic accounts of prosecutorial discretion, from Herbert Wechsler through the present day, portray charging discretion as the antithesis of law. Scholars express particular concerns about racial and other nefarious grounds for prosecution, while others worry about the increased range of choices available to prosecutors when criminal codes become bloated with new crimes. The familiar response to this problem features a call for greater external legal regulation. The external limits might come from judges who review prosecutorial charging decisions, or from legislatures reworking the criminal code. These external oversight projects, however, have failed. This article explores some facets of internal regulation - efforts within prosecutors' offices to control and legitimize prosecutorial discretion. Based on remarkably detailed data from New Orleans and observations from several other major cities, we are able to examine the inner working of prosecutors' offices - the black box - to learn about the reasons prosecutors give for their declinations. The long-delayed arrival of the information age to prosecutors' offices allows us to understand more about the internal regulatory forces within those offices. Our thesis is simple but profound: the internal office policies of thoughtful chief prosecutors can produce the predictable choices, respectful of legal constraints, that lawyers expect from traditional legal regulation. The reasons prosecutors give for their charging decisions show the influence of substantive and procedural legal doctrines and the policy priorities of supervisors - all sources that one would expect to dominate in a system that respects the rule of law. Moreover, these reasons show prosecutors responding to social norms, living up to group expectations about what it means to be a prosecutor in that particular office. The internal norms of prosecutors differ from other social norms recognized and studied by legal scholars because they grow and operate within a government organization. Norms within government organizations are far more susceptible to design changes than social norms in public and private groups. The key virtue of social norms within a prosecutor's office is transparency. Internal regulations deserve respect when they expose the prosecutor's black box to scrutiny and accountability.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
黑匣子
从赫伯特·韦克斯勒(Herbert Wechsler)到现在,对检控自由裁量权的经典描述将指控自由裁量权描绘为法律的对立面。学者们对种族和其他邪恶的起诉理由表示特别关注,而其他人则担心,当刑法因新罪行而变得臃肿时,检察官的选择范围会扩大。对这一问题的常见回应是呼吁加强外部法律监管。外部限制可能来自审查起诉决定的法官,或者来自修订刑法的立法机构。然而,这些外部监督项目都失败了。本文探讨了内部监管的一些方面-检察官办公室内控制和使检察官自由裁量权合法化的努力。根据来自新奥尔良的非常详细的数据和来自其他几个主要城市的观察,我们能够检查检察官办公室的内部运作——黑箱——来了解检察官给出的拒绝的原因。检察官办公室姗姗来迟的信息时代,使我们能够更多地了解这些办公室的内部监管力量。我们的论点简单而深刻:深思熟虑的首席检察官的内部办公室政策可以产生可预测的选择,尊重法律约束,这是律师们期望从传统法律监管中得到的。检察官为其指控决定给出的理由显示了实体法和程序法理论以及监督者的政策优先次序的影响——在一个尊重法治的制度中,人们期望所有这些来源都占主导地位。此外,这些理由表明,检察官是对社会规范的回应,符合群体对在特定办公室担任检察官意味着什么的期望。检察官的内部规范不同于法律学者所认可和研究的其他社会规范,因为它是在政府机构内成长和运作的。政府组织内部的规范远比公共和私人团体的社会规范更容易受到设计变化的影响。检察官办公室的社会规范的关键优点是透明。当内部规定将检察官的黑匣子暴露在审查和问责之下时,它们值得尊重。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Since its inception in 1915 as the Iowa Law Bulletin, the Iowa Law Review has served as a scholarly legal journal, noting and analyzing developments in the law and suggesting future paths for the law to follow. Since 1935, students have edited and have managed the Law Review, which is published five times annually. The Law Review ranks high among the top “high impact” legal periodicals in the country, and its subscribers include legal practitioners and law libraries throughout the world.
期刊最新文献
Overlitigating Corporate Fraud: An Empirical Examination Minors and Digital Asset Succession Against Adversary Prosecution The Dormant Commerce Clause as a Limit on Personal Jurisdiction Assessing the Viability of Race-Neutral Alternatives in Law School Admissions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1