This article describes the state of prosecution at the turn of the millenium and recent innovations in prosecution and their implications. After describing sources of resistance to innovation, the article focuses on breakthroughs in information and forensic technology and their effects on prosecution; the effects of social movements on the reshaping of prosecution as a community-spirited service delivery system; the introduction of preventive strategies in policing and their effects on prosecution; and associated adjustments in prosecution management. It identifies the absence of comprehensive, periodic, visible systems of public accountability as the great problem in contemporary prosecution, one that retards innovation and productivity. The article concludes with a vision for a more effective, efficient, and just system of prosecution.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AsplenC. H. (1999) Forensic DNA evidence: National commission explores its future. National Institute of Justice Journal, 238 (January), pp. 17–24.
2.
BolandB. (1996). What is community prosecution?National Institute of Justice Journal, 231 (August), pp. 35–40.
3.
BolandB., & ForstB. (1985). Prosecutors don't always aim to pleas. Federal Probation, 49 (June), pp. 10–15.
4.
BuergerM. E. (1994). The limits of community. In RosenbaumD. P. (Ed.), The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 270–273). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
CapizziM.CookJ. I., & SchumacherM. (1995). The TARGET model—a new approach to the prosecution of gang cases. The Prosecutor, 29 (March/April), pp. 18–21.
7.
ColesC. M., & KellingG. L. (1999). Prevention through community prosecution. The Public Interest, 136 (Summer), pp. 69–84.
8.
ConnorsE.LundreganT.MillerN. & McEwenT. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
9.
C-SPAN 2. (1999, June 9). Police-community relations.
10.
DeFrancesC. J.SmithS. K., & van der DoesL. (1996). Prosecutors in state courts, 1994. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
11.
Department of Justice. (1996). Youth violence: A community-based response—one city's success story. Washington, DC: Author. Also, www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/boston.txt.
12.
EtzioniA. (1993). Spirit of community. New York: Crown.
13.
FinnP. (1995). The Manhattan district attorney's narcotics eviction program. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
14.
FordD. (1993). Indianapolis domestic violence prosecution experiment. Indianapolis: Indiana University.
15.
ForstB. (1983). Prosecution and sentencing. In WilsonJ. Q. (Ed.), Crime and public policy (pp. 165–182). San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies.
16.
ForstB. (1993). The prosecutor and the public. In ForstB. (Ed.), The socioeconomics of crime and justice (pp. 291–302). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
17.
ForstB. (1995). Prosecution and sentencing. In WilsonJ. Q. & PetersiliaJ., (Eds.), Crime. (pp. 363–386) San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies.
18.
ForstB., & BrosiK. (1977). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the prosecutor. Journal of Legal Studies, 6 (January), pp. 177–191.
19.
FukuyamaF. (1999). The great disruption: Human nature and the reconstruction of social order. New York: Free Press.
20.
GalbraithJ. K. (1958). The affluent society. Cited in JackmanM., The Macmillan book of business & economic quotations (p. 200). New York: Macmillan.
21.
GlazerE. (1999). How federal prosecutors can reduce crime. The Public Interest, 136 (Summer), pp. 85–99.
22.
HillsmanS. (1982). Pretrial diversion of youthful adults: A decade of reform and research. The Justice System Journal, 7, (3), pp. 361–387.
23.
JacksonR. H. (1940). The federal prosecutor. Journal of the American Judicial Society, 24, pp. 18–29.
24.
KennedyD. M. (1999, May 23). Boston proves something can be done. The Washington Post. p. B3.
25.
KlockarsC. B. (1991). The rhetoric of community policing. In KlockarsC. B. & MastrofskiS. D. (Eds.), Thinking about police: contemporary readings, (2nd ed.) (pp. 530–542). New York: McGraw-Hill.
26.
MartinsonR. (1974). What works?—Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35 (Spring), pp. 22–54.
27.
MastrofskiS. D. (1991). Community policing as reform: A cautionary tale. In KlockarsC. B. & MastrofskiS. D. (Eds.), Thinking about police: contemporary readings. (2nd ed.) (pp. 515–530). New York: McGraw-Hill.
28.
NaderR. (1965). Unsafe at any speed. New York: Grossman.
29.
National College of District Attorneys. (1999). Office administration course. [Online] Available: www.law.uh.edu/NCDA/maroff.html, June 28, 1999.
30.
Office for Victims of Crime. (1998). New directions from the field: Victims' rights and services for the 21st century—prosecution. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
31.
PetersT. J., & WatermanR. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-run companies. New York: Warner Books.
32.
ReissA. (1974). Discretionary justice in the United States. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 2, pp. 181–197.
33.
RosenC. (1995). The romantic generation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
ShermanL. W.GottfredsonD. C.MacKenzieD. L.EckJ.ReuterP., & BushwayS. D. (1998). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
35.
StevensN. M. (1994). Defining community prosecution. The Prosecutor, 28 (March/April), pp. 13–14.
36.
WillingR. (1998, December 7). States adding burglars to DNA databases: Police re-examine criminals once thought of as relatively innocuous. USA Today, p. 3A.
37.
Ziembo-VoglJ., & WoodsD. (1996). Community policing practice versus paradigm. Police Studies, 19, (October), pp. 33–50.
