A test of the bifurcation hypothesis in prosecutorial diversion

Abstract

Research Summary

This study offers a localized test of the bifurcation hypothesis, which suggests that jurisdictions adopting decarceral policies for lower-level offenses often do so at the expense of increased punitiveness toward more serious offenses. Relying on fresh data from Florida, we examine how adopting a new diversion program targeting low-level traffic offenses affects overall prosecutorial diversion decisions. The new program is associated with an estimated 8% decrease in the odds of diversion to existing programs. Analyses of marginal effects suggest that the new program reduced diversion for more serious offenses by up to 43%. Although having a prior record disadvantaged defendants overall, defendants with more prior arrests experienced less of a diversion penalty after the new program; but defendants with more prior prison sentences were treated even more punitively after program implementation.

Policy Implications

In support of the bifurcation hypothesis, the effects of a new prosecutor-led diversion program for low-level offenses were attenuated by decreased diversion usage for other programs targeting more serious offenses. New diversion policies should focus on the adoption of programs that expand the pool of divertible cases rather than focusing only on minor offenses. Prosecutors should also critically examine prior record considerations in diversion offers, which disqualify defendants from many diversion programs.