| In 1994 California implemented its version of the "three-strikes law" which called for a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 -years -to-life for all offenders. with three qualifying felonies. In addition. the law also eliminated many avenues of discretion that had been traditionally enjoyed by prosecutors and judges. However, prosecutors were given the ability to dismiss a prior strike offense when it was determined to be "in the furtherance of Justice." This discretion was extended to judges as well by the California Supreme Court in the case People v. Superior Court (Romero) [53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789 (Cal, 1996)]. Because of the potential inter-branch rivalry between Judges and prosecutors, I hypothesize that the use of judicial discretion in three-strike cases has had an impact on the corresponding use of prosecutorial discretion. To test this hypothesis, I use logistic regression to analyze how judicial discretion has had an impact on the prosecution of three-strike cases in San Diego County, Using data from 1995 and 1997 in a pre- and post-test analysis, I conclude that the 1996 extension of this discretionary power to judges has not affected the way in which prosecutors exercise their authority to strike a strike. |
Updated 05/20/2006