Introduction
In the United States, the criminal justice system is categorized as an adversary system. The adversary system resolves disputes by listening to the conflicting views of both parties, and a relatively passive arbiter decides which sides wins and loses. The decisions made are based on the facts presented and the law. Thus, the adversary system is not a model for resolving disputes, but it recognizes the fundamental rights of individuals as well as protecting their dignity. The right that comprises the adversary system includes the right to a fair hearing, representation by a counsel, trial by jury and the right to require the government to prove guilt without compulsion. Thus, the leading role of an adversary system is to ensure a free society and individual rights are respected.
The administration of these rights is not possible without various individuals performing specific tasks within the criminal justice system. Within the adversarial system, for instance, each has specialized duties to perform depending on their line of duties. However, shared goals to maintain the ultimate goal of justice in the court leads to the existence of courtroom work groups. These workgroups comprise primarily of judges, prosecutors, district attorney, and clerks. These workgroup members are provided with the necessary resources to ensure that they can perform their tasks effectively. The way in which these passive arbiters interact has a direct outcome of the criminal proceedings. Whereas collaboration and interdependence among members of the workgroups are often considered to be essential determinants of sentencing decisions, such supposed determinants to success are instead the causes of failure within the criminal justice system. When competition, dynamics and lack of professionalism dominates courtroom activities, injustices predominate. Thus, this paper examines how the relationship between courtroom room workgroups affects the sentencing of decisions regarding similarity and workgroup representation
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Literature Review
Prosecutorial discretion
Several individuals comprise the courtroom work groups. All these individuals fulfill various functions, and their roles are interdependent. These groups interact frequently forming meaningful relationships. The police officers, for instance, are the most important officials of the courtroom groups in their roles as the gatekeepers who bring criminals into the criminal justice system. The prosecutors represent the state in the criminal proceedings. The defense attorneys, on the other hand, play an essential role in ensuring that the defendant's rights are protected throughout the criminal proceedings. The judges after hearing both sides fulfill various roles such sentencing of individuals, presiding overhearing and trials, issuing warrants and denying bails. Other work groups also include court clerks, witnesses, and administrators.
In the recent years, the American adversary criminal system has received unprecedented attacks because of individual members of courtroom work groups being considered most potent in controlling the criminal justice systems ( Metcalfe, 2016). However, many argue that no one is superior. For instance, prosecutors are considered the most influential actors in the criminal justice system. They make decisions that control almost the whole system and may affect the outcomes of cases ( Williams, 2013) significantly. Moreover, they exercise utmost discretion when it comes to making such decisions. Kim, Spohn, and Hedberg (2015) as sert that prosecutors make two crucial decision among them being charging and plea bargaining. This means that they decide as to whether as they charge an individual for the crime committed and the charges that will be indicated in the charge sheet, in all these decisions they enjoy broad discretion. A person may be arrested for being in possession of illegal drugs such as heroin. The police officer may recommend that the person is charged for trying to distribute the drugs, a felony that if convicted has the minimum sentence. The prosecutor, in this case, has some choices. He may choose not to charge the person at all or charge him with only a small misdemeanor that only requires probation. This decision solely depends on the discretion of the prosecutor.
This also happens in the plea bargaining process. The prosecutor is not obligated by the law to offer any defendant a plea that is lesser than the crime committed ( Haynes, Ruback & Cusick, 2010). However, if they do on their discretion, they decide that offer they will give to the defendant. Indeed, the defendant is likely to plead guilty to lesser offenses that have lesser sentencing depending on the crimes he has committed. Thus, the plea bargaining is considered as the most convenient way of sentencing. Research conducted by Williams (2013) revealed that plea bargaining resolves 95 percent of most criminal cases. This whole process is controlled by the prosecutor who predetermines the outcome of the criminal case. Charging and plea bargaining has a tremendous impact on the direction criminal cases take place. Often this kind of prosecutorial discretion which its primary goals are to pursue justices is misused, which results in either dismissal or conviction of crimes that were not deemed likely.
According to Haynes, Ruback, and Cusick(2010) , a good relationship between the prosecutor and other actors in the work groups plays an essential role in ensuring that there is fairness when it comes to conviction and dismissal of criminal cases. Studies conducted by Williams (2013) revealed that prosecutors and public defenders work together as a team despite having different bases of power and knowledge. This type of cooperation relationships helps in achieving the common goals of members which are doing justice. However, in extreme cases, there is an uncooperative relationship between the prosecutor and the defense counsel especially if a private counsel represents the defendant. The disparity in the relationship occurs because private counsel sees themselves as being superior to public defenders. According to Williams (2013) , secret counsels are more prepared when it comes to representing their clients as compared to the public defenders. Public defenders occasionally do not have the specific details of their clients making them look unprepared when it comes to representing them. However, cases taken by the public defender are likely to be given a plea bargaining as compared to those by private counsels.
Workgroup Diversities
According to Haynes, Ruback, and Cusick(2010), the background characteristics of various actors in the court community play an important role in shaping the focal concerns of the criminal proceedings as well as deliberations that are to be made in criminal cases. Workgroup similarities regarding gender, level of education, race, political party, and age significantly determines the rates of success in how justices are determined( Metcalfe, 2016). Most sentencing decisions are influenced by how a particular group is represented in the overall workforce. A study by Clair and winter (2016) suggest that proportion of judges in a district who are black may feel distinctly obligated to demonstrate allegiance to the norms of other actors in the courtroom workgroups on the decisions they make especially if a majority are blacks. In this case, this means even issuing harsh sentencing to white defendants. Kim, Spohn, and Hedberg (2015) go further to suggest that a large percentage of black judges in the judiciary are likely to form racial biases as compared to the white counterparts.
Research conducted by Kim, Spohn, and Hedberg (201) also revealed that this kind of diversity has an impact when it comes to even prosecution.For instance, an African American is charged with a crime of distributing illegal drugs, which is a felony that is loaded with five years minimum imprisonment. A public defender represents the defendant because of his economic background. Despite the reasons given by the defendant including not having a prior criminal record, selling drugs to support his family, the prosecutor may decide to charge him or her with more serious offenses as compared to his white counterpart who is accused of a less severe assault. The prosecutor may cite reasons such as how the defendant has agreed to go through a rehabilitation program, how the student has never committed any crime in his life history and how his arrest will interfere with his life ( Clair & Winter, 2016). The same circumstances may also apply to a black prosecutor who may consciously decide to treat a white defendant more harshly and empathize with the black defendant giving him proper treatment. The prosecutor decision in both situations is likely to produce a racial disparity because her choices were not based on law fact. This unconscious or conscious bias may lead to the denial of justice. Haynes, Ruback, and Cusick (2010) assert that prosecutors are given such discretions to help eliminate racial disparities in the justice system. Studies conducted by Williams (2013) shows that the Prosecution and Racial justice program is one of the strategies that can help in eliminating this biases. However, this can only work if all the members of the work groups are willing to ensure that racial justice is a priority.
Clair and & winter (2016) examined the effects of similarity in diversity when it comes to deciding sentencing and harmonious working of workgroups. They found out that workgroups with the highest levels of similarity when it comes to race, level of education and gender have a good working relationship as compared to workgroups with lowest levels of similarity. Besides, the level of sentencing was determined by how the level of experience and education of member. Workgroups that exhibited high levels of stability were less likely to impose fines and those that had only college education were likely to impose steep penalties ( Kim, Spohn & Hedberg, 2015) .
In conclusion, the literature review has focused on the privileges the prosecutor is given when it comes to the power of discretion. The prosecutor discretionary powers come into play during sentencing and plea bargaining. These powers over whether or not to present a case to the jury or sentence the defendant may lead to denying victims opportunities for justice as well as criminals engaging freely in criminal activities. This discretion should, therefore, be well controlled to ensure that the primary goals are achieved. The relationship between the prosecutor and various work groups is also essential in determining the outcome of cases. There should be a stable working relationship between members of the work groups to ensure better negotiations, less reliance and effective administration of justice. Racial disparity is also a common problem in the criminal justice system. Prosecutors and judges depending on their racial orientation are likely to favor defendants. Prosecutors, therefore, should be willing to change their policies regarding decision making to create the real impact in the administration of justice.
References
Clair, M., & Winter, A. S. (2016). How judges think about racial disparities: Situational decision ‐ making in the criminal justice system. Criminology , 54 (2), 332-359.
Hartley , R. D., Miller, H. V., & Spohn, C. (2010). Do you get what you pay for? Type of counsel and its effect on criminal court outcomes. Journal of Criminal Justice , 38 (5), 1063-1070.
Haynes, S. H., Ruback, B., & Cusick, G. R. (2010). Courtroom workgroups and sentencing: The effects of similarity, proximity, and stability. Crime & Delinquency , 56 (1), 126-161.
Kim, B., Spohn, C., & Hedberg, E. C. (2015). Federal sentencing as a complicated collaborative process: Judges, prosecutors, judge–prosecutor dyads, and disparity in sentencing. Criminology , 53 (4), 597-623.
Metcalfe, C. (2016). The Role of Courtroom Workgroups in Felony Case Dispositions: An Analysis of Workgroup Familiarity and Similarity. Law & Society Review , 50 (3), 637-673.
Williams, M. R. (2013). The effectiveness of public defenders in four Florida counties. Journal of Criminal Justice , 41 (4), 205-212.
