Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

This study seeks to explain the shift from traditional conceptions of prosecution toward the adoption of community prosecution. Using a contingency theory framework, the authors hypothesize that community prosecution is dependent on organizational size, structural complexity of prosecutors' offices, and uncertainty in both the internal and external operating environment. Data from 749 counties in the 2001 National Survey of Prosecutors (NSP) were used to measure four community prosecution elements potentially used by prosecutor offices and organizational characteristics. Hypotheses were tested using the NSP data, county-level socioeconomic demographics from the 1990 and 2000 census, and drug arrests from the Uniform Crime Reports 1994 to 1999. The results indicate that adoption of community prosecution is principally predicted by organizational size and structural complexity. Implications for the research and implementation of community-based justice initiatives are discussed.

Drug control in the United States has historically been based on a penal approach and led by federal legislations and initiatives. This top-down, punitive approach to the drug problem is still prevalent in American drug policy making. The authors present a case study of a bottom-up policy initiative to remedicalize the processing of addicted offenders. Past prosecutorial experiments often failed because of flawed understandings, unrealistic expectations, and lack of sustained public support. This article considers a New York–based, prosecutor-led program that diverts repeat felony drug offenders from prison to residential treatment. Through successful recruitment of political allies, continuous rejuvenation of the program, emphasis on research and evaluation, and maintenance of ideological vagueness, the Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison (DTAP) program has yielded positive results, been replicated in other jurisdictions, and prompted Congress to entertain federal DTAP legislation. The history of DTAP is summarized, and lessons for future innovations are discussed.

Prosecutors have virtually unfettered discretion in their plea negotiations with defendants. Where discretion is unrestricted, unwarranted disparity is likely to follow. The current study examines the relationship between offender characteristics and count bargaining. From an integrated theory approach (integrating concession and consensus models, liberation hypothesis, and focal concerns theory), the current study hypothesizes that race and ethnicity, sex, age, and employment status of the offender has an effect on count bargaining decisions in only the borderline serious cases. Data were collected on 2,578 guilty pleas in Chicago, Illinois, in 1993 and analyzed using a backwards selection logistic regression analysis partitioning cases by severity of the most serious charge. The results from these analyses indicate that offender characteristics do not have a statistically significant effect on count bargaining. However, there may be important differences masked by straight pleas, symbolic bargaining, and overcharging practices.

Individuals who are charged for traditional crimes are substantially more likely to plead guilty than individuals who are charged under the same statutes but who are officially involved in terrorism (Smith & Damphousse, 1998). Relying on a structural–contextual theory framework, a quantitative analysis not only confirmed that terrorists plead guilty more often than traditional offenders but that the defendant’s age and number of counts in the indictment are important predictors. Directions for future research are suggested.