Prosecutorial Discretion: The Effects of Uncertainty
Abstract
In this paper the author analyzes the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to “go forward” with charges. The author examines the relationship between sources of uncertainty in decision making and the initial decision to begin the criminalization process. Organizational theory bearing on uncertainty avoidance provides the perspective guiding the analysis. The author uses a maximum likelihood procedure to estimate the net effects on the probability of prosecution of a set of variables measuring uncertainty emerging within the backdrop of prosecutorial concern for obtaining a conviction at a jury trial.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Prosecutorial and court decisions are made in a context of bounded rationality, in that court actors make decisions with insufficient information, which produces uncertainty.
“Albonetti (1987Albonetti ( , 1991) ) argued that prosecutorial and court decisions are made in a context of bounded rationality, in that court actors make decisions with insufficient information, which produces uncertainty.”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Albonetti 1987
Decision makers fall back on attributions about reoffending risk and/or rehabilitation potential that can be linked to race, ethnicity, gender, and other social status stereotypes, which can result in extralegal sentencing disparity connected to these statuses.
“Decision makers then fall back on attributions about reoffending risk and/or rehabilitation potential that can be linked to race, ethnicity, gender, and other social status stereotypes.This can then result in extralegal sentencing disparity connected to these statuses.”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Albonetti 1987
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 337
- Authors
- Albonetti, C. A.
- Corresponding author
- Albonetti, Celesta A.
- Venue
- Law & Society Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1987
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 291-313
- ISSN
- 0023-9216 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5893
- OpenAlex
- W2322761390
- Cited by
- 337
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 40 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 3.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Law & Society Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Evidence
- Keywords
- prosecutorial discretion, uncertainty avoidance, organizational theory, criminalization, jury trial, criminal conviction, prosecutorial decision-making, criminal justice decision-making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
