Skip to main content
Log in

Charge reduction: An analysis of prosecutorial discretion in burglary and robbery cases

Journal of Quantitative Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although a substantial number of researchers have studied charge reductions taking place within the context of guilty plea negotiations, few have focused on estimating the determinants of charge reductions taking place at the initial screening decision. The prosecutor's decision to reduce original felony charges to a misdemeanor has serious social, legal, and economic consequences for the suspect. This paper presents a model of the variables affecting the likelihood of such a reduction in burglary and robbery offenses. Drawing from Littrell's “principled charging” perspective and earlier research on labeling, the analysis involves estimating logistic regression equations specifying both main and interaction effects of the suspect's gender and race and variables related to suspect character, case seriousness, and legal seriousness. Partial support is found for Littrell's perspective.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Albonetti, C. A. (1987). Prosecutorial discretion: The effects of uncertainty.Law Soc. Rev. 2l: 291–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, J. H., and Nelson, F. D. (1984).Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, I. N., Kick, E., Leung, J. T., and Schulz, B. (1977). Charge reduction: An intermediary stage in the process of labelling criminal defendants.Social Forces 56: 363–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, D. M., and Frazier, C. E. (1984). The effects of gender on charge reduction.Sociol. Q. 25: 385–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumberg, A. (1967). The practice of law as a confidence game: Organizational cooptation of a profession.Law and Society Review 15: 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K., and Shaut, M. H. (1976). Note: The use of mandamus to control prosecutorial discretion.Am. Crim. Law Rev. 13: 563–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, O. (1970). The decision to prosecute.Law Soc. Rev. 4: 331–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, S. (1976). Prosecutorial discretion: An overview.Am. Crim. Law Rev. 3: 383–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. C. (1969).Discretionary Justice, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. M. (1977). Is law a system of rules? In Dworkin, R. M. (ed.),The Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstein, J., and Jacob, H. (1977).Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts, Little & Brown Co., Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeney, F., Dill, F., and Weir, A. (1983). Arrests without conviction: How often they occur and why? U.S. Department of Justice Report, National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueria-McDonough, J. (1985). Gender differences in informal processing: A look at charge bargaining and sentence reduction in Washington, D.C.J. Res, Crime Delinq. 22: 101–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. A., and Jackson, J. E. (1977).Statistical Methods for Social Scientists, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, M. D., Daudistel, H. C., and Farrell, R. A. (1987). Determinants of charge reductions and final dispositions in cases of burglary and robbery.J. Res. Crime Delinq. 24: 233–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, D. W., and Lemeshow, S. (1989).Applied Logistic Regression, John Wiley & Son, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, J. (1980).The American Prosecutor: A Search for Identity, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFave, W. R. (1970). The prosecutor's discretion in the United States.Am. J. Comp. Law 18: 532–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littrell, W. B. (1979).Bureaucratic Justice: Police, Prosecutors, and Plea Bargaining, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, D. F. (1979). From plea negotiation to coercive justice: Notes on the respecification of a concept.Law Soc. Rev. 13: 385–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHugh, P. (1970). A common-sense conception of deviance. In Douglas, J. D. (ed.),Deviance and Respectability, Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, F. (1970).Prosecution: The Decision to Charge a Suspect with a Crime, Little, Brown, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, H. S., McDonald, W. F., and Cramer, J. A. (1978). Plea bargaining in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice report, National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner, N. (1971).The Court and Local Law Enforcement, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardulli, P., Eisenstein, J., and Flemming, R. B. (1988).The Tenor of Justice, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neubauer, D. (1978). After the arrest: The charging decision in Prairie City. In Atkins, B., and Pogrebin, M. (eds.),The Invisible Justice System: Discretion and the Law, Anderson, Cincinnati.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, T. (1985). A comment on presenting results from logit and probit models.Am. Sociol. Rev. 50: 130–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, H. L. (1970).Settled Out of Court: The Social Process of Insurance Claims Adjustments, Aldine, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudnow, D. (1964). Normal crimes: Sociological features of the penal code in a public defender office.Social Problems 12: 255–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C. W., and Fitch, W. A. (1976). Prosecutorial decision making.Am. Crim. Law Rev. 13: 507–559.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Albonetti, C.A. Charge reduction: An analysis of prosecutorial discretion in burglary and robbery cases. J Quant Criminol 8, 317–333 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064551

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064551

Key words

Navigation