Prosecutorial discretion has been apointof controversy in the United States. American prosecutors' essentially unchecked discretion and theiroverwhelming dominance in pleabargaining have long been criticized as inconsistent with the principles offairness, equity, and accountability on which the system ofjustice in the United States is based. In considering possible American law reform, scholars and commentators have suggested the possibilities of reforming the American system by referring to the experience of continental law countries. In the context of prosecutorial practice, these reformers are especially impressed by the principle ofcompulsory prosecution and the consistent control that is placed on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in continental law countries. Continental law systems, however, have undergone significant changes in the past 20 years. This article documents recent developments in prosecutorial practices in the United States and in three continental law countries. It comparatively analyzes the differences between the American and continental prosecutorial systems and explores the possibilities ofreforming certain aspects ofthe American prosecutorial system by referring to the experience of continental law countries.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Albrecht, H. J. (200). Criminal prosecution: Developments, trends and open questions in the Federal Republic of Germany. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law, and Criminal Justice, 8(3), 245-256.
2.
Alexander v.Holmes County Board of Education, 396 US. 19 (1969).
3.
Alschuler, A. (1983). Implementing the criminal defendant's right to trial: Alternatives to the plea bargaining system. University of Chicago Law Review, 50, 931-1050.
4.
American Bar Association. (1986). Standardsfor criminaljustice: he prosecutionfunction. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.
5.
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987).
6.
Arnold, T. (1932). Law enforcement: An attempt at social discretion. Yale law Journal, 42, 1-24.
7.
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 533 U.S. 924 (2001).
8.
Boari, N. (1997). On the efficiency of penal systems: Several lessons fiom the Italian experience. International Review of Law and Economics, 17, 115-125.
9.
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978).
10.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
11.
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970).
12.
Connecticut Dept. of Income Maint. v. Heckler, 471 U.S. 524 (1985).
13.
Currie, E. (1998). Crime andpunishment in America. New York: Metropolitan Books.
14.
Davis, K. C. (1969). Discretionaryjustice. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
15.
Decision of February 8, 1990, Italian Constitutional Court.
16.
Decision of April 18, 1990, Italian Constitutional Court.
17.
Decision of February 15, 1991, Italian Constitutional Court.
18.
Decision of March 29, 1993, Italian Constitutional Court.
19.
Dubber, M. D. (1997). American plea bargaining, German lay judges, and the crisis of criminal procedure. Stanford Law Review, 49, 547-605.
20.
Ehrmann, H. W. (1976). Comparative legal cultures. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21.
Ely, J. (1980). Democracy and distrust. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
Fassler, L. J. (1991). The Italian Penal ProcedureCode: An adversarial systemofcriminal procedure in continental Europe. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 29, 245-278.
23.
Field, S., & West, A. (1995). A tale of two reforms: French defense rights and police powers in transition. Criminal Law Forum, 6, 473-506.
24.
Fionda, J. (1995). Public prosecutors and discretion: A comparative study. Oxford, NY: Clarendon Press.
25.
Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000).
26.
Frase, R. S. (1990). Comparative criminal justice as a guide to American law reform: How do the French do it, how can we find out, and why should we care?California Law Review, 78, 539-683.
27.
Frase, R. S., & Weigend, T. (1995). German criminal justice as a guide to American law reform: Similar problems, better solutions?Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 18, 317-360.
28.
Gershman, B. L. (1992). The new prosecutors. Universityof Pittsburgh Law Review, 53, 393-458.
29.
Gifford, D. G. (1983). Meaningfil reform of plea bargaining: The control of prosecutorial discretion. University of Illinois Law Review, 1983, 37-98.
30.
Glendon, M. A. (1984). The sources of law in a changing legal order. Creighton Law Review, 17, 663-498.
31.
Goldstein, A. S. (1981). The passvefjudiciary: Prosecutorial discretion and the guilty plea. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
32.
Goldstein, B. L., & Marcus, M. (1977). The myth ofjudicial supervision in three "inquisitorial" systems: France, Italy, and Germany. Yale Law Journal, 87,240-283.
33.
Gordon, D. R. (1994). The return ofthe dangerous classes. New York: Norton.
34.
Grande, E. (2000). Italian criminal justice: Borrowing and resistance. American Journal of Comparative Law, 48, 227-260.
35.
Hatchard, J., Huber, B., & Vogler, R. (1996). Comparative criminal procedure. London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
36.
Heller, R. (1997). Selective prosecution and the federalization of criminal law: The need for meaningful judicial review of prosecutorial discretion. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 145, 1039-1358.
37.
Herrmann, J. (1992). Bargainingjustice: A bargain for German criminaljustice?University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 53, 755-776.
38.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
39.
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000).
40.
Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2001).
41.
Jackson, R. H. (1940). The federal prosecutor. Journal of American Judicature Society, 24, 18-19.
42.
Jackson, V. C., & Tushnet, M. (1999). Comparative constitutional law. New York: Foundation Press.
43.
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).
44.
Langbein, J. H. (1974). Controlling prosecutorial discretion in Germany. University of Chicago Law Review, 41, 439-467.
45.
Langbein, J. H. (1977). Comparative criminalprocedure: Germany. St. Paul: West.
46.
Langbein, J. H. (1979). Land without plea bargaining: How the Germans do it. Michigan Law Review, 78, 204-225.
47.
Langbein, J. H. (1981). Mixed court and jury court: Could the continental alternative fill the American need?American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 1981, 195-219.
48.
Leigh, L. H., & Zedner, L. (1992). The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice: A report on the administration of criminal justice in the pretrial phase in France and Germany. London: HMSO.
49.
Mack, R. L. (1996). It's broken so let's fix it: Using a quasi-inquisitorial approach to limit the impact of bias in the American criminal justice system. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, 7, 63-93.
50.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
51.
Merryman, J. H. (1985). The civil law tradition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
52.
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).
53.
Miller, F. W. (1970). Prosecution: 7he decision to charge a suspect with a crime. Boston: Little Brown.
54.
Miller, J. J. (1990). Plea bargaining and its analogues under the new Italian Criminal Procedure Code and in the United States: Towards anew understandingof comparative criminal procedure. New York University Journal of International Law & Politics, 22, 215-251.
55.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
56.
Misner, R. (1996). Recasting prosecutorial discretion. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 86, 717-777.
57.
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961).
58.
New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984).
59.
Newman v. United States, 382 F.2d 479 (D.C. Cir. 1967).
60.
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984).
61.
Ohlin, L. E., & Remington, F. J. (Eds.). (1993). Discretion in criminal justice: The tension between individualization and uniformity. Albany: SUNY Press.
62.
Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962).
63.
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 537 (1980).
64.
Pizzi, W. T. (1993). Understanding prosecutorial discretion in the United States: Limits of comparative criminal procedure as an instrument of reform. Ohio State Law Journal, 54, 1325-1373.
65.
Pizzi, W. T., & Marafioti, L. (1992). The new Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: The difficulties of building an adversarial system on a civil law foundation. Yale Journal of International Law, 17, 1-40.
66.
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981).
67.
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971).
68.
Schlesinger, R. (1977). Comparative criminal procedure: A plea for utilizing foreign experience.Buffalo Law Review, 26, 361-385.
69.
Schlesinger, R., Baade, H. W., Herzog, P. E., & Wise, E. M. (1998). Comparative law. New York: Foundation Press.
70.
Schramm, G. (1970). The obligation to prosecute in West Germany. American Journal of Comparative Law, 18, 627-632.
71.
Sheehan, A. V. (1975). Criminal procedure in Scotland and France. Edinburgh, Scotland: HMSO.
72.
Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24 (1965).
73.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971).
74.
Swenson, T. (1995). The German plea bargaining debate. Pace International Law Review, 7, 373-429.
75.
Terrill, R. J. (1999). Worldcriminaljustice systems. Cincinnati: Anderson.
76.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
77.
Tomlinson, E. (1983). Nonadversarial justice: The French experience. Maryland Law Review, 42, 131-195.
78.
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976).
79.
United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996).
80.
United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300 (1973).
81.
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985).
82.
United States v. Chemical Foundation Inc., 272 U.S. 1 (1926).
83.
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
84.
United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (1995).
85.
Uviller, H. R. (1999). The tiltedplayingfield. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
86.
Van Cleave, R. A. (1997). An offer you can't refiue? Punishment without trial in Italy and the United States: The search for truth and an efficient criminal justice system. Emory International Law Review, 11, 419-469.
87.
Van Kessel, G. (1992). Adversarial excesses in the American criminal trial. Notre Dame Law Review, 67, 403-551.
88.
Verrest, P. (2000). The French Public Prosecution Service. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law, and Criminal Justice, 8(3), 210-244.
89.
Vorenberg, J. (1981). Decent restraint of prosecutorial power. Harvard Law Review, 94, 1521-1573.
90.
Vouin, R. (1970). The role of the prosecutor in French criminal trial. American Journal of Comparative Law, 18,483-497.
91.
Walker, S. (1993). Taming the system: The control of discretion in criminaljustice, 1950-1990. New York: Oxford University Press.
92.
Wallace, H. (1995). A prosecutor's guide to stalking. The Prosecutor, 29,26-30.
93.
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976).
94.
Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985).
95.
Weigend, T. (1980). Continental cures for American ailments: European criminal procedure as a model for law reform. Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, 2, 381-428.
96.
West, A., Desdevises, Y., Fenct, A., Gaurier, D., & Heussaff, M. C. (1993). The French legal system. London: Format Publishing.
97.
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986).
98.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).
99.
Zauberman, R. (1991). Victims en France: Des positions, intdrets et strategies diverses. Diviance et Sociiti, 15(1), 27-49.
100.
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990).
101.
Zweigert, K., & Kötz, H. (1987). Introduction to comparative law. Oxford, NY: Clarendon Press.
