| Using Q-methodology and personal interviews, this study examined the attitudes of the St. Louis County, Missouri, criminal justice system toward three dimensions of prosecutorial discretion: the decision to charge, plea bargaining, and limits on prosecutorial discretion. Six groups of subjects performed the Q-sort: prosecutors, private attorneys, public defenders, judges, police detectives, and defendants. Their responses were factor analyzed and four distinct outlooks emerged.;The Defense Perspective contained thirteen subjects, including all public and private defense attorneys. This perspective emphasized that informal exchange relationships between the prosecuting attorney and individuals in his environment, as well as political pressures, rather than formal institutions and written rules, were most significant in placing limits on the prosecutor's discretion. These subjects expressed strong support for the prosecutor's domain, emphasized that discretion should be utilized to individualize justice, and were unwilling to advocate that legal restrictions be placed on the prosecutor's discretion.;The Traditionalist Perspective consisted of ten subjects including all prosecutors and four judges. They stressed the need to individualize justice and the necessity of maintaining the traditional independence of the prosecutor's discretion. The greatest area of disagreement between these two perspectives concerned the degree to which the prosecutor's environment affects his discretion. Traditionalists viewed prosecutors as indifferent to the actions of others and as having commitments to both due process and law enforcement norms, while the defense viewpoint asserted that prosecutors have a high need to interact with others to obtain convictions, and have relatively less concern for individual rights. Both accepted plea bargaining as a "fact of life" and disregarded normative issues.;The Defendants' Perspective, consisted of two individuals. Their major concerns were their own attorneys' failure to provide them with adequate representation, the need for compulsory prosecution, and general support for plea bargaining.;Finally, the Anti-Plea Bargaining Perspective contained three police detectives and two defendants. They also argued for a system of compulsory prosecution, but their major concern was with the purported unfairness of plea bargaining. |
