Prosecutorial Discretion: Selective Enforcement Of Laws?

The discretionary powers of prosecutors and law enforcement officers are a topic of great discussion and ethical debate. While the principle of discretion allows prosecutors and police officers to decide whether to charge someone with a crime and which charges to file, selective enforcement of laws can lead to unequal treatment and arbitrary outcomes. This fine line raises questions about the ethical boundaries of a prosecutor's discretionary powers and the potential for abuse of authority. This introduction will discuss the complexities and implications of selective law enforcement, exploring the challenges faced by prosecutors in balancing their discretionary powers with the principles of justice and equality.

Characteristics of selective law enforcement

Prosecutors have broad discretion in deciding when, whom, how, and whether to prosecute

Prosecutors have a wide range of discretion when it comes to deciding when, whom, how, and whether to prosecute. This discretion is recognised by courts and is a well-established principle in the US federal criminal justice system.

Prosecutors do not work in isolation and are part of a broader criminal justice ecosystem. They exercise supervision over law enforcement personnel and must regularly meet and confer with law enforcement agencies regarding prosecution and law enforcement policies. They are also responsible for training prosecutors to comply with legal standards that govern the selection of jurors. Prosecutors are also tasked with protecting the public interest and must carefully consider the interests of all involved, including suspects, defendants, and the public, when dealing with the media.

The broad discretion granted to prosecutors enables them to decide when and what to investigate. While this discretion is necessary for practical reasons, it can also lead to ethical dilemmas and potential abuse. For example, a prosecutor may choose to charge a citizen with an obsolete law or bylaw, which could be considered an unethical use of their discretion.

To ensure fair and effective prosecution, prosecutors should consider the seriousness of the defendant's conduct and whether the charges are proportional to the crime. They must also consider the purposes of criminal law, such as punishment, protection of the public, specific and general deterrence, and rehabilitation.

In the context of selective enforcement, a defendant claiming discriminatory prosecution must demonstrate two key points. Firstly, they must show that others in similar situations have generally not been prosecuted, indicating that they have been singled out. Secondly, they must provide clear evidence that they are victims of invidious discrimination based on impermissible considerations such as race, religion, or the exercise of a constitutionally protected right.

Selective enforcement is not illegal unless bias or discrimination is involved

In law, selective enforcement occurs when government officials such as police officers, prosecutors, or regulators exercise discretion, or the power to choose whether or how to punish a person who has violated the law. While selective enforcement is not inherently illegal, it can become problematic when bias or discrimination is involved.

Law enforcement officers and prosecutors are granted significant latitude in deciding whether to charge someone with a crime and which charges to file. This discretion allows them to consider the specific circumstances of each case and make decisions based on the seriousness of the defendant's conduct, the public interest, and the objectives of criminal law, such as punishment, protection of the public, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

However, the biased use of enforcement discretion, such as that based on racial prejudice, corruption, or the exercise of a constitutionally protected right, is typically considered a legal abuse and a threat to the rule of law. For example, a prosecutor displaying bias by selectively enforcing a law against members of a specific racial group would be deemed illegal.

To establish selective enforcement of the law, a defendant must demonstrate two key factors. Firstly, they must show that others in similar situations have generally not been prosecuted, indicating that they have been unfairly singled out. Secondly, they must provide clear evidence that the selective enforcement was motivated by discriminatory factors such as race, religion, or the exercise of a constitutionally protected right.

In some cases, selective enforcement may be inevitable or even desirable. For instance, it may be impractical for police officers to issue traffic tickets for every minor speeding offence, so they may focus on more flagrant examples of reckless driving. While this type of selective enforcement does not necessarily constitute legal abuse, it underscores the importance of ethical decision-making by law enforcement officers to prevent the undermining of fundamental principles of justice and equality.

Prosecutors do not represent law enforcement personnel

In the United States, the principle of discretion grants public prosecutors and police significant latitude in deciding whether to charge someone with a crime and which charges to file. While this discretion can be beneficial, allowing for the consideration of individual circumstances, it can also lead to ethical concerns and potential abuse. For example, selective enforcement based on racial prejudice or corruption is considered a legal abuse and a threat to the rule of law.

To address these concerns, the federal criminal justice system provides guidelines for prosecutors to ensure fair and effective decision-making. These guidelines include considering the proportionality of charges to the seriousness of the defendant's conduct and whether the charges achieve the purposes of criminal law, such as punishment, protection of the public, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Additionally, prosecutors should be mindful of the media's role and carefully consider the interests of all involved, including suspects, defendants, and the public, when inviting media presence during investigative actions.

Furthermore, prosecutors may exercise supervision over law enforcement personnel involved in particular prosecutions when it is in the best interests of justice and the public. Regular meetings and conferences between the prosecutor's office and law enforcement agencies are encouraged to discuss prosecution policies and law enforcement policies. However, despite these measures, the potential for abuse of power remains.

In conclusion, while prosecutors do not represent law enforcement personnel, they play a crucial role in overseeing and guiding law enforcement actions to ensure fair and ethical prosecution while upholding the interests of justice and the public.

Selective enforcement may be inevitable or desirable in some cases

In law, selective enforcement occurs when government officials, such as police officers, prosecutors, or regulators, exercise discretion in choosing whether or how to punish a person who has violated the law. While this discretion grants public prosecutors and police significant latitude in deciding whether to charge someone with a crime and which charges to file, it is important to recognize that biased enforcement based on factors such as racial prejudice or corruption is typically considered a legal abuse and a threat to the rule of law.

That being said, there are indeed scenarios where selective enforcement may be deemed inevitable or even desirable. For instance, it would be impractical for police officers to issue traffic tickets to every driver exceeding the speed limit. In such cases, officers may have to selectively enforce the law, focusing on the most blatant instances of reckless driving. Similarly, in the context of law enforcement, officers may encounter rude and obnoxious citizens. While technically violating the law, a verbal warning or a minor charge, such as riding a bicycle without a bell, can effectively alter the behavior without resorting to harsh legal punishment. This approach also benefits from reducing the burden on the criminal justice system.

Furthermore, selective enforcement can be observed in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which started in 2012. This program utilizes the executive branch's discretionary authority to grant certain individuals illegally brought to the United States as minors temporary authorization to live and work in the country. This selective enforcement prioritization reflects a conscious decision to focus on humanitarian considerations rather than strict legal enforcement.

Additionally, selective enforcement may be deemed desirable in situations where a prosecutor's discretion is necessary to protect the public interest. For example, a prosecutor may need to take lawful steps to safeguard the interests of all involved, including suspects, defendants, and the public, when dealing with media presence during investigative actions. Prosecutors are also allowed to exercise supervision over law enforcement personnel involved in particular prosecutions when it aligns with the interests of justice and the public.

However, it is crucial to acknowledge the potential pitfalls of selective enforcement. When laws are enforced inconsistently, it can lead to arbitrary outcomes, favoritism, and unequal treatment under the law. Therefore, while selective enforcement may be inevitable or desirable in certain circumstances, it must be exercised with caution to ensure it does not undermine the fundamental principles of justice and equality.

The public interest must be protected by prosecutors

Prosecutors are responsible for investigating and prosecuting criminal matters, and they have a duty to protect the public interest. While they have broad discretion in deciding whether to prosecute and which charges to file, they must exercise this power carefully and ethically. The public relies on prosecutors to uphold the law impartially and ensure that justice is served.

In the United States, prosecutors have significant latitude in determining when, whom, and how to prosecute apparent violations of federal criminal law. This discretion extends to initiating or foregoing prosecutions, selecting charges, and terminating prosecutions by accepting guilty pleas. However, with great power comes great responsibility, and prosecutors must ensure that their decisions are fair, ethical, and in the best interests of justice and the public.

To ensure fairness and accountability, prosecutors should consider the proportionality of the charges and their consequences. The charges should reflect the seriousness of the defendant's conduct and aim for punishment, protection of the public, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Prosecutors must also be mindful of potential biases and avoid discriminatory enforcement based on factors such as race, religion, or the exercise of constitutional rights.

Selective enforcement occurs when government officials, including prosecutors, exercise their discretion in a biased manner. While it may be inevitable or even desirable in some cases, it can also undermine the fundamental principles of justice and equality. Prosecutors must be aware of the potential for abuse of power and ensure that their decisions are justified and in line with legal standards. Regular training and adherence to ethical guidelines are crucial to maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system and protecting the public interest.

In summary, while prosecutors have the authority to make discretionary decisions, they must exercise this power responsibly and ethically. The public interest must be at the forefront of their considerations, and prosecutors should strive to uphold the law impartially, promote fairness, and ensure that justice is served in the best possible way.

Frequently asked questions