Introduction
The decision-making process in the justice system can be a challenge for professionals, as they usually significantly affect people’s lives. Discretion assumes that professionals involved can make decisions based on their judgment of the circumstances of the case. Despite the severity and importance of the laws, discretion makes it possible to consider each issue’s uniqueness when making professional judgments and, therefore, plays a significant role in the justice system.
Features of Discretionary Decision-Making
One can highlight several features emphasizing the role of discretion in the system. First, it provides the possibility of an individual approach to the case (Jauernig et al., 2022). The specialist considers various factors related to the point when making decisions, for example, unique circumstances or the offender’s past.
Second, such an individual approach balances formal and informal justice (Jauernig et al., 2022). For example, when making decisions, the specialist will consider not only laws but also the potential and readiness of the offender to rehabilitate. Thirdly, assessing the severity of a case in the application of discretion helps to prioritize focusing on more severe violations, which supports security and reduces resource waste. At the same time, discretionary decisions take work to make since several factors influence them.
Examples of Discretionary Decision-Making
In practice, one can find many examples of discretionary decision-making and its effect on humans. For instance, in the Diane Jones case, a woman was arrested despite her innocence because an ex-boyfriend distributed drugs in her house (Equal Justice Initiative [EJI], n.d.). Lawyers representing both defendants wanted to prove Diane’s innocence through her boyfriend’s testimony but changed strategy during the case (EJI, n.d.). Diane Jones received a sentence of life imprisonment since, in the past, almost twenty years before her case, she already had an offense.
However, the EJI (n.d.) was able to achieve the woman’s liberation after six years of being in jail. There are several discretionary decisions, including the decision to arrest, charge, lawyers’ strategy, sentence, and pardon. Initially, decisions were not made in favor of Diane Jones, but the reconsideration made it possible to better take into account the circumstances of the case and settle it.
Elements of Discretionary Decision-Making
The critical elements in discretionary decision-making are authority, integrity, discretionary power, and morality. The morality element assumes that the decision will consider legal norms and the moral and ethical rules adopted in society (Wojciechowski & Zirk-Sadowski, 2020). During discretionary decision-making, experts can evaluate their decisions in terms of whether they are morally acceptable. Such a perspective is essential to balance with established laws, but in practice, morality is critical to achieving justice.
For example, in the case under consideration, Diane Jones was not guilty and had only one violation, after which she led a legitimate life for many years. However, due to unfair decisions, she suffered, and morality pushed EJI and the judges to reconsider the decision and release the woman. As a result, the discretionary decision aimed at restoring justice, emphasizing morality’s importance.
Conclusion
Thus, discretion in criminal justice can support justice by allowing actions based on the judgments of specialists. Discretion promotes a more individualized approach when dealing with cases, a balance of formal and informal justice, and prioritization of work. As shown by the case under consideration, it is essential to consider elements of discretionary decision making. In particular, an aspect of morality helped restore justice after a series of decisions led to the imprisonment of an innocent woman.
References
Equal Justice Initiative. (n.d.). Diane Jones. Web.
Jauernig, J., Uhl, M., & Walkowitz, G. (2022). People prefer moral discretion to algorithms: Algorithm aversion beyond intransparency. Philosophy & Technology, 35(1), 1-25. Web.
Wojciechowski, B., & Zirk-Sadowski, M. (2020). The argument of rightness as an element of the discretionary power of the administrative judge. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 33(1), 215-229. Web.