The Charging Decisions The C,路itieal Fi,路st I;ew Minutes in the Lire or a C,"iminal Case
by Ron Fields 搂
)
Photography by Gary Speed
OUf society tends to concentrate on the "bolLom linc", The criminal justice sys-
tem has not escaped this type of focusing. with the most intense interest being given to the final decision in a case. neglecting all of the eritical factors that led up 10 that decision. Perhaps no one factor is overlooked more and with less justification than the charging decision. Prosecutors face charging decisions by the dozens on any typical day. The bulk of these are handled by "orrice policy"' or whalCvcr tCfm is used for tradition in a particular office. The remainder of the cases. typically those "tip of the iceberg"' 10
The Arkan ..a'l L<twycr
Winter 1996
high profile cases and other serious offenses. are handled individually. but one cannot overlook the traditional charging policies of the office even in these instances. Office policies are basically driven by two faclOrs. the "'tone" that the Prosecutor wishes to set for his office and the result thal the Prosecutor wishes (0 achieve in an individual case. Balancing these two, at times conflicting interests, is where the rub comes in. The churging decision does in fact affect the "tone" or image of the office as much as the results, in many cases. Want to appear "lOugh" on rape? Charging
rape in each and every allegation of sexual abuse may sound like a get tough policy, but if you lock yourself inro a charge that you're later going to have to reduce or even nolle pros, suddenly you have gone from appearing to have no tolerance for sexual offenders (0 being incredibly soft on these types of offenses. When should you make a common detached decision about what a particular offender and set of circumstances deserves? My advice would be 10 do it 011 the front end of the case and coordinate the charoino o 0 decision with \Vha! you want to have happen at the end of the case and the disposition.