Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-chc8l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-02T03:36:24.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Prosecutorial Discretion

from Part II - Criminal Procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

By
Shannon Fyfe  and
Alexander Heinze
Edited by
Kai Ambos ,
Antony Duff ,
Alexander Heinze ,
Julian Roberts  and
Thomas Weigend
Kai Ambos
Affiliation:
Judge Kosovo Specialist Chambers, The Hague
Antony Duff
Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Alexander Heinze
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Julian Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend
Affiliation:
University of Cologne (Emeritus)
Get access

Summary

Within the criminal justice system, the presence or absence of discretion is one of the most important determinants of whether or not the system secures justice for all parties and participants. The question is where justice lies on the spectrum running between criminal law by rules and criminal law by decision. Prosecutors in German and Anglo-American criminal law occupy distinctive roles, as decision-makers, due to both the institutional and normative framework, and the presence of both role duality and role ambiguity. Since prosecutorial discretion in the context of an investigation cannot be separated from police discretion, this chapter covers all discretionary decisions during the proceedings by prosecutors and the police. The chapter thus only deals with discretionary decisions of other agents (such as judicial discretion) from a conceptual perspective since the particular, constitutionally protected position of judges affects their discretion considerably. In the words of the German Constitutional Court: ‘Police forces and public prosecutors do not enjoy independence and cannot be expected – with regard to their investigatory powers and duties – to show the same strict neutrality as judges do.’

Type
Chapter
Information
Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 169 - 218
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abrams, N., ‘Internal Policy: Guiding the Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion’, University of California at Los Angeles Law Review, 19 (1971), 1–58.Google Scholar
Albrecht, P. A., Jugendstrafrecht, 3rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2000).Google Scholar
Allen, R., ‘Alternatives to Prosecution’, in McConville, M. and Wilson, G. (eds.), The Handbook of the Criminal Justice Process, Oxford University Press (2002), 168–77.Google Scholar
Ambos, K. (ed.), Sentencing – Anglo-American and German Insights, Göttingen University Press (2020).Google Scholar
Ambos, K. and Heinze, A., ‘Abbreviated Procedures’, in Bergsmo, M. (ed.), Abbreviated Criminal Procedures for Core International Crimes, Brussels, TOAEP (2017), 27–102.Google Scholar
American Bar Association, ‘Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function’ (2017), available at www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/ProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition/.Google Scholar
American Bar Association, Model Rules of Professional Conduct.Google Scholar
Aristotle, Politics, ed. and trans. by Reeve, C. D. C., Indianapolis, IN, Hackett (1998).Google Scholar
Arnoldi, O., ‘Präsente Beweismittel in der Praxis’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (2018), 305–11.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A., ‘Prosecution, Police and Public – A Guide to good Gatekeeping’, Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 23 (1984), 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, F., ‘Der Verdacht im Strafverfahren’, Jura (2007), 13–15.Google Scholar
Bachof, O., ‘Beurteilungsspielraum und unbestimmter Rechtsbegriff im Verwaltungsrecht’, Juristenzeitung, 10 (1955), 97–102.Google Scholar
Bailey, S. H., Ching, J. P. L. and Taylor, N. W., Smith, Bailey and Gunn on the Modern English Legal System, 5th edn, London, Sweet & Maxwell (2007).Google Scholar
Barczak, T., ‘Die Staatsanwaltschaft als “Justizbehörde”’, Juristenzeitung, 75 (2020), 1125–80.Google Scholar
Barno, M. and Lynch, M, ‘Selecting Charges’, in Wright, R. F., Levine, K. L. and Gold, R. M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Prosecutors and Prosecution, Oxford University Press (2021), 35–58.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, M. P., ‘The Myth of Discretion’, in Hawkins, K. (ed.), The Uses of Discretion, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1992), 129–62.Google Scholar
Beckett, K., ‘The Uses and Abuses of Police Discretion: Toward Harm Reduction Policing’, Harvard Law and Policy Review, 10 (2016), 77–100.Google Scholar
Bentham, J., Of Laws in General, ed. Hart, H. L. A., London, Athlone (1970).Google Scholar
Bentham, J., Securities against Misrule and Other Writings for Tripoli and Greece, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1991).Google Scholar
Bergsmo, M., Kruger, P. and Bekou, O., ‘Article 53’, in Ambos, K. (ed.), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Munich, Oxford, Baden-Baden, C. H. Beck, Hart, Nomos (2021), 1621–43.Google Scholar
Bharara, P., Doing Justice: A Prosecutor’s Thoughts on Crime, Punishment, and the Rule of Law, New York, Alfred A. Knopf (2019).Google Scholar
Bierschbach, R. A., ‘Equality in Multi-Door Criminal Justice’, New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 23 (2020), 60–73.Google Scholar
Binder, G., ‘Foundations of the Legislative Panopticon: Bentham’s Principles of Morals and Legislation’, in Dubber, M. (ed.), Foundational Texts in Modern Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 79–99.Google Scholar
Binder, G. and Smith, N., ‘Framed: Utilitarianism and Punishment of the Innocent’, Rutgers Law Journal, 32 (2000), 178–84.Google Scholar
Bohlander, M., Principles of German Criminal Procedure, 2nd edn, Oxford, Hart (2021).Google Scholar
Bottomley, A. K., Decisions in the Penal Process, London, Fred B. Rothman & Co. (1973).Google Scholar
Bowers, J. and Robinson, P. H., ‘Perceptions of Fairness and Justice: The Shared Aims and Occasional Conflicts of Legitimacy and Moral Credibility’, Wake Forest Law Review, 47 (2012), 211–84.Google Scholar
Boyne, S., ‘German Prosecutors and the Rechtsstaat’, in Langer, M. and Sklansky, D. A. (eds.), Prosecutors and Democracy, Cambridge University Press (2017), 138–74.Google Scholar
Bronitt, S., ‘Deferred Prosecution Agreements’, in Colvin, V. and Stenning, P. (eds.), The Evolving Role of the Public Prosecutor, New York, Routledge (2019), 45–59.Google Scholar
Bronitt, S. and Stenning, P., ‘Understanding Discretion in Modern Policing’, Criminal Law Journal, 35 (2011), 319–32.Google Scholar
Brunner, R. and Dölling, D., Jugendgerichtsgesetz, 13th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2018).Google Scholar
Bullinger, M., ‘Das Ermessen der öffentlichen Verwaltung’, Juristenzeitung, 39 (1984), 1001–48.Google Scholar
Campbell, L., Ashworth, A. and Redmayne, M., The Criminal Process, 5th edn, Oxford University Press (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choe, D. H., ‘Discretion at the Pre-Trial Stage: A Comparative Study’, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 20 (2014), 101–19.Google Scholar
Choongh, S., Policing as Social Discipline, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1997).Google Scholar
Christie, G. C., ‘An Essay on Discretion’, Duke Law Journal, 5 (1986), 747–78.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. R., ‘Rule versus Discretion’, Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 11 (1914), 208–15.Google Scholar
Cole, G. F., Smith, C. E. and DeJong, C., Criminal Justice in America, 9th edn, Boston, MA, Cengage (2018).Google Scholar
Colvin, V., ‘The Riddle of Prosecutorial Discretion’, in Colvin, V. and Stenning, P. (eds.), The Evolving Role of the Public Prosecutor, New York, Routledge (2019), 139–53.Google Scholar
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Recommendation 19 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the Role of Public Prosecution in the Criminal Justice System, 6 October 2000, available at https://rm.coe.int/16804be55a.Google Scholar
Cummings, L. P., ‘Can an Ethical Person Be an Ethical Prosecutor?’, Cardozo Law Review, 31 (2010), 2139–59.Google Scholar
Dallmeyer J., ‘Der weisungsgebundene Staatsanwalt zwischen Strafvereitelung im Amt und Verfolgung Unschuldiger’, in Saliger F. (ed.), Rechtsstaatliches Strafrecht: Festschrift für Ulfrid Neumann zum 70. Geburtstag, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2017).Google Scholar
Davis, A. J., Arbitrary Justice, Oxford University Press (2007).Google Scholar
Davis, K. C., Administrative Law Treatise, St Paul, MN, West (1958).Google Scholar
Discretionary Justice, Baton Rouge, LA, Louisiana State University Press (1969).Google Scholar
Demleitner, N. V, ‘Prosecutors and Sentencing’, in Wright, R. F., Levine, K. L. and Gold, R. M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Prosecutors and Prosecution, Oxford University Press (2021), 153–70.Google Scholar
Denninger, E., ‘Rechtsstaat’, in Denninger, E. and Lüderssen, K. (eds.), Polizei und Strafprozeß im demokratischen Rechtsstaat, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, (1978), 67–72.Google Scholar
Denninger, E., ‘“Rechtsstaat” oder “Rule of Law” – was ist das heute?’, in Prittwitz, C., Baumann, M., Günther, K., Kuhlen, L., Merkel, R., Nestler, C. and Schulz, L. (eds.), Festschrift für Klaus Lüderssen, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2002).Google Scholar
Detterbeck, S., Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, 19th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2021).Google Scholar
Dicey, A. V., Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 10th edn, London, MacMillan (1886, repr. 1979).Google Scholar
Dietrich, F., ‘Rechtsbegriffe. Recht als Sonderfall einer Normordnung’, in Hilgendorf, E. and Joerden, J. C. (eds.), Handbuch Rechtsphilosophie, Stuttgart, J. B. Metzler (2017), 2–6.Google Scholar
Dingwall, G. and Harding, C., Diversion in the Criminal Process, London, Sweet & Maxwell (1998).Google Scholar
Dinwiddy, J., Bentham, Oxford University Press (1989).Google Scholar
Dirnaichner, U., Der nordamerikanische Diversionsansatz und rechtliche Grenzen seiner Rezeption im bundesdeutschen Jugendstrafrecht, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang (1990).Google Scholar
Dreier, R., ‘Der Rechtsstaat im Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Gesetz und Recht’, Juristenzeitung, 40 (1985), 353–9.Google Scholar
Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T., Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., ‘Discretion and Accountability in a Democratic Criminal Law’, in Langer, M. and Sklansky, D. A. (eds.), Prosecutors and Democracy, Cambridge University Press (2017), 9–39.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., ‘Judicial Discretion’, Journal of Philosophy, 60 (1963), 624–38.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., ‘The Model of Rules’, University of Chicago Law Review, 35 (1967), 14–46.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press (1977).Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., Law’s Empire, Cambridge, MA, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (1986).Google Scholar
Elsner, T. Das Ermessen im Lichte der Reinen Rechtslehre, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2011).Google Scholar
Fairfax, R. A. Jr, ‘Testing Charges’, in Wright, R. F., Levine, K. L. and Gold, R. M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Prosecutors and Prosecution, Oxford University Press (2021), 59–74.Google Scholar
Feldman, M., ‘Social Limits to Discretion: An Organizational Perspective’, in Hawkins, K. (ed.), The Uses of Discretion, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1992), 163–84.Google Scholar
Finnis, J. Natural Law and Natural Rights, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (2011).Google Scholar
Fletcher, G. P., ‘Some Unwise Reflections about Discretion’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 47 (1984), 269–86.Google Scholar
Foster, J. E., ‘Charges to Be Declined: Legal Challenges and Policy Debates Surrounding Non-Prosecution Initiatives in Massachusetts’, Boston College Law Review, 60 (2019), 2511–46.Google Scholar
Frase, R. S. and Weigend, T., ‘German Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform: Similar Problems, Better Solutions’, International and Comparative Law Review, 18 (1995), 317–60.Google Scholar
Fuller, L. R., The Morality of Law, rev. edn, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press (1969).Google Scholar
Fyfe, S., ‘Ethics, Integrity, and the Bemba Acquittal’, in Bergsmo, M. and Dittrich, V. (eds.), Integrity in International Justice, Brussels, TOAEP (2020), 269–305.Google Scholar
Fyfe, S., ‘Politics and the Institutional Integrity of the International Criminal Court’, in Dittrich, V. and Heinze, A. (eds.), The Past, Present and Future of the Rome Statute, Brussels, TOAEP (2021), chapter 21.Google Scholar
Galligan, D. J., Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion, Oxford University Press (1990).Google Scholar
Galligan, D. J., ‘Regulating Pre-Trial Decisions’, in Lacey, N. (ed.), Criminal Justice, New York, Oxford University Press (1994), 151–76.Google Scholar
Garner, B. A. (ed.), Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th edn, Eagan, MN, Thomson West (2019).Google Scholar
Gatgens, E., Ermessen und Willkür im Straf- und Strafverfahrensrecht, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang (2007).Google Scholar
Gelsthorpe, L. and Padfield, N., ‘Introduction’, in Gelsthorpe, L. and Padfield, N. (eds.), Exercising Discretion, Devon and Portland, OR, Willan (2003), 1–28.Google Scholar
George, B. J., ‘Screening, Diversion and Mediation in the United States’, New York Law School Law Review, 29 (1984), 1–38.Google Scholar
Gershman, B. L., ‘Prosecutorial Decisionmaking and Discretion in the Charging Function’, Hastings Law Journal, 62 (2010), 1259–84.Google Scholar
Gifford, D. T., ‘Decisions, Decisional Referents, and Administrative Justice’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 37 (1972), 3–48.Google Scholar
Gill, N., Rotter, R., Burridge, A. and Allsopp, J., ‘The Limits of Procedural Discretion: Unequal Treatment and Vulnerability in Britain’s Asylum Appeals’, Social and Legal Studies, 27 (2018), 49–78.Google Scholar
Gloss, W., ‘Standards in der polizeilichen Jugendarbeit’, Zeitschrift für Jugendkriminalrecht und Jugendhilfe (2007), 278–83.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E., ‘Welfare, Rights and Discretion’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 6 (1986), 232–61.Google Scholar
Gottfredson, M. R. and Gottfredson, D. M., Decision Making in Criminal Justice, 2nd edn, Cham, Springer (1988).Google Scholar
Green, B. A. and Zacharias, F. C., ‘Prosecutorial Neutrality’, Wisconsin Law Review, 3 (2004), 837–904.Google Scholar
Green, B. A. and Zacharias, F. C., ‘Bar Authorities and Prosecutors’, in Wright, R. F., Levine, K. L. and Gold, R. M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Prosecutors and Prosecution, Oxford University Press (2021), 309–26.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, K., ‘Discretion and Judicial Decision: The Elusive Quest for the Fetters that Bind Judges’, Columbia Law Review, 75 (1975), 359–99.Google Scholar
Griffin, L. C., ‘The Prudent Prosecutor’, Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 14 (2001), 259–307.Google Scholar
Grosse-Wilde, T., ‘Criminal Sentencing in Canada and Germany: Law without Order? A Commentary from a German Perspective’, in Ambos, K. (ed.), Sentencing – Anglo-American and German Insights, Göttingen University Press (2020), 279–99.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., The Concept of Law, Oxford University Press (1961, 3rd edn 2002, eds. Raz J. and Bulloch P. A.).Google Scholar
Hawkins, K., ‘The Use of Discretion: Perspectives from Law and Social Science’, in Hawkins, K. (ed.), The Uses of Discretion, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1992), 11–46.Google Scholar
Heghmanns, M., Das Arbeitsgebiet des Staatsanwalts, 4th edn, Cologne, Otto Schmidt (2010).Google Scholar
Heinz, W., ‘Diversion im Jugendstrafrecht und im allgemeinen Strafrecht – Teil 3’, Deutsche Vereinigung für Jugendgerichte und Jugendgerichtshilfen-Journal (1999), 131–48.Google Scholar
Heinze, A., International Criminal Procedure and Disclosure, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2014).Google Scholar
Heinze, A., ‘The Kosovo Specialist Chambers’ Rules of Procedure and Evidence’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 15 (2017), 985–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinze, A., ‘Bridge over Troubled Water – A Semantic Approach to Purposes and Goals in International Criminal Justice’, International Criminal Law Review, 18 (2018), 929–57.Google Scholar
Heinze, A., ‘Private International Criminal Investigations and Integrity’, in Bergsmo, M. and Dittrich, V. (eds.), Integrity in International Justice, Brussels, TOAEP (2020), 615–738.Google Scholar
Heinze, A., ‘Prosecutors and Trials’, in Wright R. F., Levine K. L. and Gold R. M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Prosecutors and Prosecution, Oxford University Press (2021), 117–52.Google Scholar
Heinze, A. and Fyfe, S., ‘Prosecutorial Ethics and Preliminary Examinations at the ICC’, in Bergsmo, M. and Stahn, C. (eds.), Quality Control in Preliminary Examination, Brussels, TOAEP (2018), Vol. 2, 1–75.Google Scholar
Heinze, A. and Fyfe, S., ‘The Role of the Prosecutor’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. and Weigend, T. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 343–88.Google Scholar
Henry, R. S., ‘The Virtue in Discretion: Ethics, Justice, and Why Judges Must Be Students of the Soul’, New York University Review of Law & Social Change, 25 (1999), 65–108.Google Scholar
Hessick C. B., ‘Prosecutors and Voters’, in Wright R. F., Levine K. L. and Gold R. M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Prosecutors and Prosecution, Oxford University Press (2021), 399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hessick, C. B. and Morse, M., Local Prosecutor Elections, 2012–2017, DATAVERSE, available at https://dataverse.unc.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.15139/S3/ILI4LC.Google Scholar
Hessick, C. and Morse, M., ‘Picking Prosecutors’, Iowa Law Review, 105 (2020), 1537–90.Google Scholar
Hester, R., ‘Sentencing in US-American Jurisdictions’, in Ambos, K. (ed.), Sentencing – Anglo-American and German Insights, Göttingen University Press (2020), 151–82.Google Scholar
HO, H. L., ‘The Criminal Trial, the Rule of Law and the Exclusion of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 10 (2016), 109–31.Google Scholar
HO, H. L., ‘Exclusion of Wrongfully Obtained Evidence: A Comparative Analysis’, in Brown, D. K., Turner, J. and Weisser, B. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process, Oxford University Press (2019), 822–9.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J., The Metamorphosis of Criminal Justice: A Comparative Account, Oxford University Press (2020).Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. and Mou, Y., ‘Empirical Approaches to Criminal Procedure’, in Brown, D. K., Turner, J. and Weisser, B. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process, Oxford University Press (2019), 43–65.Google Scholar
House of Commons, Committee of Public Accounts, Efficiency in the Criminal Justice System, First Report of Session 2016–17, 27 May 2016, available at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubacc/72/72.pdf.Google Scholar
Huber, P.M., ‘§ 6 Rechtsstaat’, in Herdegen Masing, M. Poscher R., J. and Gärditz, K. F. (eds.), Handbuch des Verfassungsrechts, Munich, C. H. Beck (2021), 383–432.Google Scholar
Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, A/HRC/20/19, 7 June 2012.Google Scholar
Hungerford-Welch, P., Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, 9th edn, New York, Routledge-Cavendish (2019).Google Scholar
Hyckel J., ‘Über die Relativität der Wahrheit im Prozess’, Rechtswissenschaft 12 (2021), 222–53.Google Scholar
International Association of Prosecutors, Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors, adopted by the International Association of Prosecutors on 23 April 1999, available at www.iap-association.org/getattachment/Resources-Documentation/IAP-Standards-(1)/English.pdf.aspx.Google Scholar
Isaacs, N., ‘Limits of Judicial Discretion’, Yale Law Journal 32 (1923), 339–52.Google Scholar
Jehle, J. M., ‘The Function of Public Prosecution within the Criminal Justice System: Aim, Approach and Outcome of a European Comparative Study’, in Jehle, J. M. and Wade, M. (eds.), Coping with Overloaded Criminal Justice Systems: The Rise of Prosecutorial Power across Europe, Berlin and Heidelberg, Springer (2006), 3–25.Google Scholar
Jescheck, H. H., ‘The Discretionary Powers of the Prosecuting Attorney in West Germany’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 18 (1970), 508–17.Google Scholar
Lehrbuch des Strafrechts, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1978).Google Scholar
Johnson, B. D. and Hernandez, R., ‘Prosecutors and Plea Bargaining’, in Wright, R. F., Levine, K. L. and Gold, R. M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Prosecutors and Prosecution, Oxford University Press (2021), 75–99.Google Scholar
Jowitt, W., Walsh, C. and Burke, J. M., Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law, 2nd edn, London, Sweet & Maxwell (1977).Google Scholar
Juy-Birmann, R., ‘The German System’, in Delmas-Marty, M. and. Spencer, (eds.), European Criminal Procedures, Cambridge University Press (2002).Google Scholar
Kades, M., ‘Exercising Discretion: A Case Study of Prosecutorial Discretion in the Wisconsin Department of Justice’, American Journal of Criminal Law, 25 (1997), 115–50.Google Scholar
Kadish, S. H., ‘Why Substantive Criminal Law – A Dialogue’, Cleveland State Law Review, 29 (1980), 1–15.Google Scholar
Kadish, S. H., Schulhofer, S. J., Streiker, C. S. and Barkow, R. E., Criminal Law and Its Processes, 9th edn, New York, Wolters Kluwer (2012).Google Scholar
King, J. D., ‘Gamesmanship and Criminal Process’, American Criminal Law Review, 58 (2021), 47–96.Google Scholar
Kischel, U., Comparative Law, Oxford University Press (2019).Google Scholar
Klatt, M., ‘Der Begriff des Rechtsstaats’, in Hilgendorf, E. and Joerden, J. C. (eds.), Handbuch Rechtsphilosophie, Stuttgart, J. B. Metzler (2017), 390–3.Google Scholar
Krey, V., German Criminal Procedure, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer (2009), Vol. 1.Google Scholar
Kudlich, H. P., ‘Einleitung’, in Kudlich, H. P. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, Munich, C. H. Beck (2014), Vol 1.Google Scholar
Künnecke, M., Tradition and Change in Administrative Law – An Anglo-German Comparison, Berlin and Heidelberg, Springer (2007).Google Scholar
LaFave, W. R., ‘The Prosecutor’s Discretion in the United States’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 18 (1970), 532–48.Google Scholar
Larkin, Jr P. J., ‘Guiding Presidential Clemency Decision Making’, Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, 18 (2020), 451–502.Google Scholar
Lepsius, O., Verwaltungsrecht unter dem Common Law, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (1997).Google Scholar
Linke M., Das besondere öffentliche Interesse an der Strafverfolgung bei relativen Antragsdelikten, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2021).Google Scholar
Linnan, D. K., ‘Police Discretion in a Continental European State’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 47 (1984), 185–223.Google Scholar
Lippke, R. L., ‘Fundamental Values of Criminal Procedure’, in Brown, D. K. et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process, Oxford University Press (2019), 25–42.Google Scholar
Luna, E. and Wade, M., ‘Prosecutors as Judges’, Washington and Lee Law Review, 67 (2010), 1413–532.Google Scholar
Luna, E. and Wade, M., ‘Preface’, in Luna, E. and Wade, M. (eds.), The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective, Oxford University Press (2012), xi–xvii.Google Scholar
MacCormick, N., ‘Der Rechtsstaat und die rule of law’, Juristenzeitung, 39 (1984), 65–70.Google Scholar
MacCormick, N., Questioning Sovereignty, Oxford University Press (1999).Google Scholar
Matthews, R., Informal Justice?, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage (1988).Google Scholar
Maurach, R. and Zipf, H., Strafrecht – Allgemeiner Teil, Vol. 1: Grundlehren des Strafrechts und Aufbau der Straftat, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (1992).Google Scholar
Maurer, H. and Waldhoff, C., Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, 20th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2020).Google Scholar
McWithey, M., ‘Taking a Deeper Dive into Progressive Prosecution: Evaluating the Trend through the Lens of Geography: Part One: Internal Constraints’, Boston College Law Review, 61 (2020), E. Supp.Google Scholar
McWithey, M., ‘Taking a Deeper Dive into Progressive Prosecution: Evaluating the Trend through the Lens of Geography: Part Two: External Constraints’, Boston College Law Review, 61, (2020), E. Supp.Google Scholar
Meier, B. D., Bannenberg, B. and Höffler, K., Jugendstrafrecht, 4th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar
Metz J., ‘Wahrheit im Strafverfahren’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 133 (2021), 447–65.Google Scholar
Meyer, F., ‘Discretion’, in Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 913–40.Google Scholar
Miller, B. and Curry, B., U.S. Attorneys, Political Control, and Career Ambition, Oxford University Press (2019).Google Scholar
Murphy, D. E., ‘Case Stirs Fight on Jews, Juries and Execution’, The New York Times (16 March 2005).Google Scholar
Ohlin, L. E., ‘Surveying Discretion by Criminal Justice Decision-Makers’, in Ohlin, L. E. and Remington, F. J. (eds.), Discretion in Criminal Justice: The Tension between Individualism and Uniformity, State University of New York Press (1993), 1–22.Google Scholar
Ohlin, L. E. and Remington, F. J. (eds.), Discretion in Criminal Justice: The Tension between Individualism and Uniformity, State University of New York Press (1993).Google Scholar
Ostendorf, H. and Drenkhahn, K., Jugendstrafrecht, 10th edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2020).Google Scholar
Partington, M., Introduction to the English Legal System, 14th edn, Oxford University Press (2019).Google Scholar
Pitcher, K., Judicial Responses to Pre-Trial Procedural Violations in International Criminal Proceedings, Berlin and Heidelberg, Asser Press and Springer (2018).Google Scholar
Plato, , The Laws of Plato, ed. and trans. Pangle, T. L. , University of Chicago Press (1988).Google Scholar
Podgor, E. S., ‘The Ethics and Professionalism of Prosecutors in Discretionary Decisions’, Fordham Law Review, 68 (2000), 1511–35.Google Scholar
Podgor, E. S., ‘Prosecution Guidelines in the United States’, in Luna, E. and Wade, M. (eds.), The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective, Oxford University Press (2012), 9–19.Google Scholar
Postema, G. J., ‘The Principle of Utility and the Law of Procedure: Bentham’s Theory of Adjudication’, Georgia Law Review 11 (1976), reprinted in Parekh B. (ed.), Jeremy Bentham: Critical Assessments, London, Routledge (1993).Google Scholar
Raz, J., ‘The Politics of the Rule of Law’, Ratio Juris, 3 (1990), 331–9.Google Scholar
Reilly, P. R., ‘Sweetheart Deals, Deferred Prosecution, and Making a Mockery of the Criminal Justice System: U.S. Corporate DPAs Rejected on Many Fronts’, Arizona State Law Journal, 50 (2018), 1113–70.Google Scholar
Riishojgaard, I., ‘The Role of the Judiciary in Assessing Police Conduct: Moving Back toward Retributive Justice’, Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 32 (2019), 903–18.Google Scholar
Roach, K., ‘Regulating the Prosecutorial Role in Wrongful Convictions’, in Colvin, V. and Stenning, P. (eds.), The Evolving Role of the Public Prosecutor, New York, Routledge (2019), 249–65.Google Scholar
Robbers, G., An Introduction to German Law, 7th edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2019).Google Scholar
Roberts, P. and Zuckerman, A., Criminal Evidence, Oxford University Press (2010).Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., ‘Fair Notice and Fair Adjudication: Two Kinds of Legality’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154 (2005), 335–98.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., ‘United States’, in Heller, K. J. and Dubber, M. (eds.), The Handbook of Comparative Criminal Law, Stanford University Press (2011), 563–92.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, M., ‘Judicial Discretion of the Trial Court, Viewed from Above’, Syracuse Law Review, 22 (1971), 635–68.Google Scholar
Roth, J. A., ‘Prosecutorial Declination Statements’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 110 (2020), 477–550.Google Scholar
Roxin, C. and Schünemann, B., Strafverfahrensrecht, 29th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Ruggeri, S., ‘Public Prosecutors in Criminal Investigations: A Comparative Law Study’, in Wright, R. F., Levine, K. L. and Gold, R. M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Prosecutors and Prosecution, Oxford University Press (2021), 3–35.Google Scholar
Safferling, C., Towards an International Criminal Procedure, Oxford University Press (2001).Google Scholar
Samaha, J., Criminal Procedure, 10th edn, Belmont, CA, Cengage (2018).Google Scholar
Schmidt H. C., ‘Beurteilungsspielräume im Strafprozess’, Neue Justiz (NJ) (2008), 390–3.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Aßmann, E., ‘§ 26 – Der Rechtsstaat’, in Isensee J. and Kirchhof P. (eds.), Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Vol. II: Verfassungsstaat, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2004), 541–612.Google Scholar
Schünemann B., ‘Zur Stellung der Staatsanwaltschaft im postmodernen Strafverfahren’, in Herzog F., Schlothauer R. and Wohlers W. (eds.), Rechtsstaatlicher Strafprozess und Bürgerrechte. Gedächtnisschrift für Edda Weßlau, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2016), 351–68.Google Scholar
Shiner, R. A. and Ho, H., ‘Deferred Prosecution Agreements and the Presumption of Innocence’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 15 (2018), 1–11.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A., Administrative Behavior, 2nd edn, New York, Macmillan (1957).Google Scholar
Simon, W. H., ‘The Organization of Prosecutorial Discretion’, in Langer, M. and Sklansky, D. A. (eds.), Prosecutors and Democracy, Cambridge University Press (2017), 175–94.Google Scholar
Skoler, D. L., ‘Standards for Criminal Justice Structure and Organization: The Impact of the National Advisory Commission’, Criminal Justice Review, 2 (1977), 1–13.Google Scholar
Smartt, U., Criminal Justice, London, Sage Publications (2006).Google Scholar
Spencer, J. R., ‘The English System’, in Delmas-Marty, M. and Spencer, J. R. (eds.), European Criminal Process, Cambridge University Press (2002), 142–217.Google Scholar
Stenning, P. and Jansson, J., ‘Framing Prosecutor-Police Relations in Europe’, in Colvin, V. and Stenning, P. (eds.), The Evolving Role of the Public Prosecutor, New York, Routledge (2019), 92–104.Google Scholar
Störmer, R., ‘Beurteilungsspielräume im Strafverfahren’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 108 (1996), 494–542.Google Scholar
The Secret Barrister (anonymous), The Secret Barrister, London, Macmillan (2018).Google Scholar
Tolman, B. L., ‘Deterring Prosecutors from Abusive Behavior’, University of Louisville Law Review, 58 (2020).Google Scholar
Tonry, M., Thinking about Crime, New York, Oxford University Press (2004).Google Scholar
Trautman, L., ‘The Criminal Justice Reforms Pushed by “Progressive Prosecutors” Are Surprisingly Conservative’, Washington Examiner, 26 November 2019, available at www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-criminal-justice-reforms-pushed-by-progressive-prosecutors-are-surprisingly-conservative.Google Scholar
Trivedi, S. and van Cleve, N. G., ‘To Serve and Protect Each Other’, Boston University Law Review, 100 (2020), 895–933.Google Scholar
Turner, J. I., ‘Plea Bargaining and Disclosure in Germany and the United States: Comparative Lessons’, William and Mary Law Review, 57 (2016), 1549–96.Google Scholar
Turner, J. I. and Weigend, T., ‘Negotiated Case Dispositions in Germany, England and the United States’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. and Weigend, T. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), 389–427.Google Scholar
UK Criminal Procedure Rules and Practice Directions (2020), available at www.gov.uk/guidance/rules-and-practice-directions-2020.Google Scholar
UK Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Conditional Cautioning: Adults – DPP Guidance’ (2019), available at www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/conditional-cautioning-adults-dpp-guidance#a03.Google Scholar
UK Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Conditional Cautioning: Youths – DPP Guidance’ (2019), available at www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/conditional-cautioning-youths-dpp-guidance.Google Scholar
UK Ministry of Justice, ‘Code of Practice for Adult Conditional Cautions’ (2013), available at www.gov.uk/government/publications/code-of-practice-for-adult-conditional-cautions.Google Scholar
UK Ministry of Justice, ‘Code of Practice for Youth Conditional Cautions’ (2013), available at www.gov.uk/government/publications/code-of-practice-for-youth-conditional-cautions.Google Scholar
UK Ministry of Justice, ‘Simple Cautions for Adult Offenders’ (2015), available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/708595/cautions-guidance-2015.pdf.Google Scholar
United Nations, ‘Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors’ (1990), available at www.un.org/ruleoflaw/blog/document/guidelines-on-the-role-of-prosecutors/.Google Scholar
United Nations, The Status and Role of Prosecutors: A United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and International Association of Prosecutors Guide, New York, United Nations (2014), available at www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/HB_role_and_status_prosecutors_14-05222_Ebook.pdf.Google Scholar
United States Department of Justice, ‘Principles of Federal Prosecution’ (2018), available at www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution#9-27.110.Google Scholar
University of North Carolina School of Law, ‘The Prosecutors and Politics Project, National Study of Prosecutor Elections’ (February 2020), available at https://law.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/National-Study-Prosecutor-Elections-2020.pdf.Google Scholar
Volk, K. and Engländer, A., Grundkurs StPO, Munich, C. H. Beck (2020).Google Scholar
von Hayek, F. A., The Road to Serfdom, Sydney, Dymock’s Book Arcade (1944).Google Scholar
Wade, M., ‘The Power to Decide – Prosecutorial Control, Diversion and Punishment in European Criminal Justice Systems Today’, in Jehle, J. M. and Wade, M. (eds.), Coping with Overloaded Criminal Justice Systems, Berlin and Heidelberg, Springer (2006).Google Scholar
Walter, M., ‘Wandlungen in der Reaktion auf Kriminalität, Zur kriminologischen, kriminalpolitischen und insbesondere dogmatischen Bedeutung von Diversion’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 95 (1983), 32–68.Google Scholar
Wandall, R., ‘Hiring and Learning Strategies in Prosecution Services’, in Wright, R. F., Levine, K. L. and Gold, R. M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Prosecutors and Prosecution, Oxford University Press (2021), 207–26.Google Scholar
Webster, E., ‘The Prosecutor as a Final Safeguard against False Convictions’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 110 (2020), 245–305.Google Scholar
Weill-Greenberg, E., ‘Deadlocked San Francisco District Attorney Race Shows Strength of Progressive Prosecutor Movement’, The Appeal, 6 November 2019, available at https://theappeal.org/san-francisco-district-attorney-race-boudin-loftus/.Google Scholar
Wiener, E. S. C. and Simpson, J. A. (eds.), The Compact Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press (1987).Google Scholar
Wright, R. F, ‘Community Prosecution and Building Trust across a Racial Divide’, in Wright, R. F., Levine, K. L. and Gold, R. M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Prosecutors and Prosecution, Oxford University Press (2021), 413–28.Google Scholar
Zacharias, F. C., ‘Structuring the Ethics of Prosecutorial Trial Practice’, Vanderbilt Law Review, 44 (1991), 45–114.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×