Introduction
In the articles under consideration, the authors thoroughly examine the process of prosecution and reflect on its characteristics. They describe in detail the circumstances which might potentially affect the sentences while relying on previous evidence. The analysis of data performed by the scholars is critical for understanding the way courts make decisions on charges and how the involved individuals and entities participate in the matter.
The Decision to Prosecute
In this piece, George F. Cole writes about the conducted research, including surveying the employees in courts and law enforcement, aimed for trace the decision-making process in the field and, more specifically, informal procedures. The particular value of the prosecutor’s office in the matter is confirmed by the findings. The author claims that cooperation between the legal sub-systems is based on the effective exchange of resources between the agencies. In this way, the productiveness of their work is conditional upon the proper sharing of responsibilities while respecting the hierarchy of individuals and entities. It means that the prosecutor possesses all relevant information as a result of this process.
Meanwhile, the relationships between all the participants are also established concerning the possibility of finding a compromise in the case of varying perspectives of the involved organizations. Thus, for example, the police might be accountable for the clarity of evidence and its stance in a matter which might be opposed by the standpoints of the prosecution. In this situation, finding common ground is critical for justice, and this task is performed with the help of courts that coordinate the functioning of all agencies. Their influence is linked to maintaining the balance while pressuring other entities and determining time frames by relying on personal factors attributed to judges and defense attorneys, who need to conform to the requirements. In turn, community leaders promote their values and manage the public reaction to verdicts.
Making the Crime Fit the Penalty
The second publication clarifies the importance of so-called prosecutorial discretion by explaining its significance for altering mandatory measures in managing criminal activity. Thus, David Bjerk writes that the possibility for prosecutors to focus on less serious offenses allows them to perform this task for regulating the examination of cases and their outcomes. Therefore, the minimum sentencing laws supported by them help mitigate the adverse consequences of one’s crimes and predict the chances of a specific sentence. This work thereby contributes to the awareness of the affected persons regarding the three-strikes laws when their cases are considered and emphasizes the importance of the described measures for prosecution.
In this publication, the scholar interprets the previous evidence of the mentioned practices, the frequency of alterations in sentences, and the way prosecutors readjust their course of action in each case. These data allow him to conclude that the power of these employees to make decisions on charges leads to the preference for targeting lesser crimes. In addition, the history of three-strike laws which are considered the most frequent cases in which prosecutorial discretion is applied implies that repeated offenses lead to more serious charges. In this case, the conduct of judges, the police, and prosecutors is realigned accordingly.
Conclusion
To summarize, the examination of issues related to prosecution shows that this area is regulated by the inclusion of numerous individuals and entities, and practices in this area. The former is presented by the varying standpoints of the judges, the police, and the community leaders alongside those of prosecutors, and this factor affects the ultimate compromise. In turn, the latter shows the possibility of affecting the verdicts by the persons who have the authority to set priorities.