For effective prosecution to take place there should be the required selected readings, methodology and analysis of the findings of the case (Siegel 2012). A standard case set is also crucial since it is a tool used for decision making in the criminal justice system. These tools enable us to understand how prosecutors view a case and how they come up with justified decisions.
The standard case set measures the level of agreement between prosecutors. Some of the well-known factors that contribute to the decision-making process of prosecutors categorized into two main types. These are legal and extra-legal. According to Siegel (2012), legal factors include the strength of evidence, culpability of the defendant and the seriousness of the offence. If the evidence against the defendant is strong, it is likely that the court will charge and convict the defendant for the offence. This also applies with the nature of the offence whereby a defendant punished severely if the offence committed was serious.
A serious offence that causes unspeakable damages be it emotional, physical or financial leads to a severe punishment. In extra-legal factors, prosecutors look into a number of things, which include the relevance of the offence towards the defendant (Siegel 2012). This mainly includes the victim's relationship with the defendant. Prosecutors also consider race, gender and ethnicity between the victim and defendant. The police must investigate the relationship between the victim and defendant. This leads to the court to understanding why the defendant may have committed the offence. If the court does not establish a relationship between the defendant and victim, then it will be a hard task for the court to establish why the defendant may have committed the offence.
The factors that are most impactful in the decision making process by prosecutors are the evidence gathered against the defendant. According to Siegel (2012), this is the most impactful factor and prosecutors make decisions according to this. This is because the more the evidence against the defendant is present, then it is likely that the defendant...
The nature of the crime also makes an impact as this determines the punishment that the defendant will face if found guilty.
The main impact of career criminal prosecution is that there is a reduction in the cases of crime in the society. This also leads to less people engaging in criminal activities since there would be a reduction in peer influence to commit a crime (Hancock & Sharp 2004). Another impact is that there is an increase in well being of citizens since it separates criminals from law-abiding citizens. The strength of using a priority prosecution plan is that it leads to accuracy whereby there is sufficient collection of evidence collected from the case. Another benefit is that experienced attorneys handle the case. This leads to a justified verdict. The main weakness in using a prosecution plan is that it is a time consuming process and information gathered is likely to be corrupted. The information goes through a number of processes for processing. The information, therefore, is likely to be corrupted.
If I were a legislator, I would consider using a priority prosecution plan because it would lead to efficiency in managing a case in court. The case becomes easier to handle, and the court gives a clean verdict to the case. This would be an effective way to ensure that justice occurs, and an offender receives punishment for the offence committed (Hancock & Sharp 2004). I would set the priorities according to the nature of the case. The criteria I would use in prioritizing cases would be the nature of the crime committed and the number of victims in a case. I would prioritize a case involving murder over a case involving theft.
References
Hancock, B.W., & Sharp, P.M. (2004). Criminal justice in America: Theory, practice, and policy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Siegel, L.J., & Worrall, J.L. (2012). Essentials of criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
McConville, M., & Mirsky, C.L. (2009). Jury trials and plea bargaining: A true history. Oxford [u.a.: Hart.
