東華大學圖書館 |

"The Question Is, Should You Charge?": An Ethnographic Study of Prosecutorial Decision-Making /

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	"The Question Is, Should You Charge?": An Ethnographic Study of Prosecutorial Decision-Making // Chiara Clio Packard.
Author:	Packard, Chiara Clio,
Description:	1 electronic resource (142 pages)
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-07, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International86-07A.
Subject:	Sociology. -
Online resource:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31770720
ISBN:	9798302176820

"The Question Is, Should You Charge?": An Ethnographic Study of Prosecutorial Decision-Making /
Packard, Chiara Clio,

"The Question Is, Should You Charge?": An Ethnographic Study of Prosecutorial Decision-Making /Chiara Clio Packard. - 1 electronic resource (142 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-07, Section: A.

This dissertation turns the scholarly gaze upwards, to one of the most powerful, yet understudied, actors in the criminal legal system: prosecutors. I use a multi-site ethnographic case study research design to examine how prosecutors make sense of their decisions and the cultural, relational, and structural factors that shape their use of discretion throughout the criminal case process. To understand the process of prosecutorial decision-making at critical points of discretion, I draw on a variety of data sources in two mid-sized midwestern District Attorneys' offices including 1) over 700 hours of ethnographic observations, 2) 80 interviews with prosecutors, DA office staff, judges, defense attorneys, and other system actors, and 3) archival evidence, such as police reports and other court administrative documents.Chapter 1, "Prosecution for Services: How the Blending of Coercion and Care Shapes Prosecutors' Decisions," focuses on how prosecutors consider treatment and social service options within and outside the criminal legal system in their charging decisions and sentencing recommendations. I find that in cases involving substance use and mental health issues, prosecutors often decide to charge someone or recommend probation not to punish them, but rather because prosecutors believe that is the only way to ensure they receive services to address these issues-a phenomenon I call prosecution for services. I argue that this practice can further marginalize vulnerable groups, criminalize poverty, and exacerbate race and class inequalities by widening the net of penal control rather than addressing people's underlying needs. While scholars have previously explored how the punishment and welfare systems in the United States are increasingly intertwined, this paper reveals how street-level bureaucrats embedded within a system that blends coercion and care may end up pulling poor people into the system in order to get them support.Chapter 2, "Boundaries of Violence: How Prosecutors Decide Between Violent and Nonviolent Charges," explores the role of prosecutors in the social construction of violence. Researchers have revealed a growing bifurcation in criminal justice policy in recent years, with reforms targeting primarily drug crimes and other nonviolent offenses alongside increased severity of punishment for "violent" offenses. However, less is known about how front-line practitioners use their discretion to draw these boundaries between violent and nonviolent crimes. Using the case of Battery and Disorderly Conduct charges, I argue that prosecutors socially construct the boundary of violence by relying not just on the law, but also on their perceptions of and interactions with the people involved in the legal process: defendants, alleged victims, and potential jurors. I argue that this social construction of violence perpetuates inequalities as prosecutors draw on racialized and classed notions of what constitutes "acceptable," as opposed to illegal, forms of violence.Chapter 3, "Case Pending: How Prosecutors Demand and Evaluate Defendant 'Performances' Pretrial," focuses on how prosecutors evaluate the behavior of defendants while their case is pending. I find that prosecutors use their charging power to coerce individuals into engaging in what they believe are appropriate behaviors, such as attending counseling, to receive better plea deals. Based on the defendant's performance, prosecutors can choose to dismiss charges entirely, reduce charges, or reduce their sentence recommendation to the judge. I identify three mechanisms through which this process manifests: 1) informal and implicit, in which the prosecutor does not explicitly tell the defendant to do something but might consider a defendant's performance in their plea negotiations, 2) informal and explicit, in which the prosecutor explicitly demands a certain performance of the defendant, and 3) formal, through the county's prosecutorial diversion program. Ultimately, this practice transforms the role of the prosecutor from one of adjudication to one of managing and rehabilitating defendants who are legally presumed innocent. These findings contribute to scholarship by highlighting the role of prosecutors in exerting social control and coercion on individuals prior to adjudication of guilt.Prosecutorial discretion is often described as a "black box" because we know relatively little about how prosecutors make such crucial and important decisions throughout the criminal case process. This dissertation provides a window into this black box, bringing insight into the process through which prosecutors make decisions about charging and plea bargaining, the meaning they attach to those decisions, and the various social and structural factors that shape their use of discretion.

English

ISBN: 9798302176820Subjects--Topical Terms:

516174
Sociology.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Criminal courts

"The Question Is, Should You Charge?": An Ethnographic Study of Prosecutorial Decision-Making /
LDR:06354nmm a22004573i 4500 001 2391396
005 20250923061213.5
006 m o d
007 cr|nu||||||||
008 251029s2025 miu||||||m |||||||eng d
020 $a 9798302176820
035 $a (MiAaPQD)AAI31770720
035 $a AAI31770720
035 $a 2391396
040 $a MiAaPQD $b eng $c MiAaPQD $e rda
100 1 $a Packard, Chiara Clio, $e author. $3 3759233
245 1 0 $a "The Question Is, Should You Charge?": An Ethnographic Study of Prosecutorial Decision-Making / $c Chiara Clio Packard.
264 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2025
300 $a 1 electronic resource (142 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-07, Section: A.
500 $a Advisors: Oliver, Pamela E. Committee members: Eason, John; Goldberg, Chad Alan; Jensen, Katherine Christine; Klingele, Cecelia M.
502 $b Ph.D. $c The University of Wisconsin - Madison $d 2025.
520 $a This dissertation turns the scholarly gaze upwards, to one of the most powerful, yet understudied, actors in the criminal legal system: prosecutors. I use a multi-site ethnographic case study research design to examine how prosecutors make sense of their decisions and the cultural, relational, and structural factors that shape their use of discretion throughout the criminal case process. To understand the process of prosecutorial decision-making at critical points of discretion, I draw on a variety of data sources in two mid-sized midwestern District Attorneys' offices including 1) over 700 hours of ethnographic observations, 2) 80 interviews with prosecutors, DA office staff, judges, defense attorneys, and other system actors, and 3) archival evidence, such as police reports and other court administrative documents.Chapter 1, "Prosecution for Services: How the Blending of Coercion and Care Shapes Prosecutors' Decisions," focuses on how prosecutors consider treatment and social service options within and outside the criminal legal system in their charging decisions and sentencing recommendations. I find that in cases involving substance use and mental health issues, prosecutors often decide to charge someone or recommend probation not to punish them, but rather because prosecutors believe that is the only way to ensure they receive services to address these issues-a phenomenon I call prosecution for services. I argue that this practice can further marginalize vulnerable groups, criminalize poverty, and exacerbate race and class inequalities by widening the net of penal control rather than addressing people's underlying needs. While scholars have previously explored how the punishment and welfare systems in the United States are increasingly intertwined, this paper reveals how street-level bureaucrats embedded within a system that blends coercion and care may end up pulling poor people into the system in order to get them support.Chapter 2, "Boundaries of Violence: How Prosecutors Decide Between Violent and Nonviolent Charges," explores the role of prosecutors in the social construction of violence. Researchers have revealed a growing bifurcation in criminal justice policy in recent years, with reforms targeting primarily drug crimes and other nonviolent offenses alongside increased severity of punishment for "violent" offenses. However, less is known about how front-line practitioners use their discretion to draw these boundaries between violent and nonviolent crimes. Using the case of Battery and Disorderly Conduct charges, I argue that prosecutors socially construct the boundary of violence by relying not just on the law, but also on their perceptions of and interactions with the people involved in the legal process: defendants, alleged victims, and potential jurors. I argue that this social construction of violence perpetuates inequalities as prosecutors draw on racialized and classed notions of what constitutes "acceptable," as opposed to illegal, forms of violence.Chapter 3, "Case Pending: How Prosecutors Demand and Evaluate Defendant 'Performances' Pretrial," focuses on how prosecutors evaluate the behavior of defendants while their case is pending. I find that prosecutors use their charging power to coerce individuals into engaging in what they believe are appropriate behaviors, such as attending counseling, to receive better plea deals. Based on the defendant's performance, prosecutors can choose to dismiss charges entirely, reduce charges, or reduce their sentence recommendation to the judge. I identify three mechanisms through which this process manifests: 1) informal and implicit, in which the prosecutor does not explicitly tell the defendant to do something but might consider a defendant's performance in their plea negotiations, 2) informal and explicit, in which the prosecutor explicitly demands a certain performance of the defendant, and 3) formal, through the county's prosecutorial diversion program. Ultimately, this practice transforms the role of the prosecutor from one of adjudication to one of managing and rehabilitating defendants who are legally presumed innocent. These findings contribute to scholarship by highlighting the role of prosecutors in exerting social control and coercion on individuals prior to adjudication of guilt.Prosecutorial discretion is often described as a "black box" because we know relatively little about how prosecutors make such crucial and important decisions throughout the criminal case process. This dissertation provides a window into this black box, bringing insight into the process through which prosecutors make decisions about charging and plea bargaining, the meaning they attach to those decisions, and the various social and structural factors that shape their use of discretion.
546 $a English
590 $a School code: 0262
650 4 $a Sociology. $3 516174
650 4 $a Law. $3 600858
650 4 $a Criminology. $3 533274
650 4 $a Law enforcement. $3 607408
653 $a Criminal courts
653 $a Poverty
653 $a Prosecutors
653 $a Punishment
653 $a Welfare
690 $a 0626
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0627
690 $a 0206
710 2 $a The University of Wisconsin - Madison. $b Sociology - LS. $e degree granting institution. $3 3759234
720 1 $a Oliver, Pamela E. $e degree supervisor.
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 86-07A.
790 $a 0262
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2025
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31770720