Politics of Discretionary Justice Among Criminal Justice Agencies (From Discretion, Justice, and Democracy, P 13-18, 1985, Carl F Pinkele and William C Louthan, eds. - See NCJ-96653)

• NCJ Number: 96654
• Author(s): W C Louthan
• Date Published: 1985
• Length: 6 pages
• Sale Source: Iowa State University Press
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This paper addresses the causes and effects of discretion in the criminal justice system and discusses the relationships among criminal justice participante.

Abstract

The discussion focuses on discretion in the 'traditional' system and in the 'bureaucratic' system. In the tradtional system official conduct is legitimized by the sanctity of custom, the personage of the judge, and an administrative staff selected by the judge. In the bureaucratic system, written rules replace custom, civil service replaces personal appointment of administrative staff, and specialists administer the justice bureaucracy in accordance with written procedures and regulations. Discretion is necessary in the traditional setting when rules no longer provide a guideline under the circumstances; however, in the bureaucratic setting, discretion is spread through the vast administrative machinery. Further, discretion is necessary in the bureaucratic environment not only when rules 'leave off,' but is also important in applying the rules themselves. The amount of discretion has neither increased nor decreased over time, but has moved from one agency to another. While the word 'discretion' may suggest that decisions are arbitrary, capricious, or even discriminatory, the word in reality is little more than a reference to a variety of complicated matters associated with the obligation of criminal justice agencies and participants to conform to some set of rules. Discretion provides the flexibility needed to ensure that justice is served.