NCJ Number
104134
Journal
Duquesne Law Review Volume: 24 Issue: 1 Dated: (Fall 1985) Pages: 253-284
Date Published
1985
Length
32 pages
Annotation
Court decisions pertinent to Pennsylvania's Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) Program (pretrial diversion) have maintained broad prosecutorial discretion to determine which cases will be diverted.
Abstract
The ARD Program has reduced court caseloads and maintained a low recidivism rate for persons in the program. Rules for the program do not specify which classes of offenses or offenders are eligible for the program. Prosecutorial discretion in determining who will enter the program has only been limited under the 1982 Pennsylvania drunk driving law, which limits the conditions under which a drunk driving defendant may participate in ARD. Such broad prosecutorial discretion has been challenged in Pennsylvania courts on both equal protection and due process grounds (Commonwealth v. Kindness, Commonwealth v. Boerner, Shade v. Commonwealth, and Commonwealth v. Lutz). In all cases, the courts have upheld and defended prosecutorial discretion in the ARD. The courts have, however, reserved the right to scrutinize the use of prosecutorial discretion to ensure that the exercise of such discretion is reasonably related to what is beneficial for society and the offender. Those who would challenge prosecutorial discretion must therefore show that in a particular case the prosecutor withheld or used ARD without reasonable reference to society's safety or the defendant's rehabilitation. There is no evidence that the courts will mandate statewide standards for what offenses should be eligible for ARD. 195 footnotes.