Retributive criminal justice: An empirical study of prosecutorial charge reduction and judicial sentencing decisions
Abstract
A normative framework of retributively based criminal justice that addresses fairness in punishing convicted criminal offenders and a Weberian framework concerning the operation of formal-rational legal systems, are used to analyze a sample of felony cases originating in 1983. The jurisdiction being studied, "Midwest City", is a large, heavily industrialized, older, city in the Midwest. Prosecutor decisions to reduce criminal charges in exchange for guilty pleas from defendents are examined to determine if felony case adjudication in the jurisdiction departs substantitively from the Weberian framework, as well as if departures from the framework lead to injustice. The use of both formal and informal rules to guide prosecutor discretion is explored. The severity of punishments meted out by sentencing judges to convicted offenders is analyzed. A normative framework of deserts based sentencing is first articulated and then used as a guiding framework for analyses of punishment decisions. Punishment severity is conceptualized as having a qualitative dimension (type of sanction) and a quantitive dimension (length of sentence term). Punishment severity is hypothesized as being, in part, a function of the visibility and frequency of criminal offenses. The study concludes that criminal adjudications by prosecutors and sentencing decisions by judges in the jurisdiction, according to the conceptual model of justice outlined, are fair.
Degree
Ph.D.
Advisors
Kanin, Purdue University.
Subject Area
Criminology
Off-Campus Purdue Users:
To access this dissertation, please log in to our
proxy server.