The Charging and Bargaining Decisions

Abstract

This chapter examines U.S. Attorneys’ decisions regarding charging and bargaining with federal criminal defendants. Based on our theoretical expectations about the importance of political responsiveness in prosecutorial decisions, we expect that prosecutors will be less likely to demonstrate leniency in providing charge reductions and offering substantial assistance downward sentencing departures when their political principals and local public send strong signals regarding their prosecutorial priorities for a given area of crime. We test this expectation empirically, relying on DOJ and U.S. Sentencing Commission data on federal violent crimes. We find evidence that political responsiveness helps drive prosecutorial behavior for both charge reductions and substantial assistance departures.

Enabling successful science‐policy knowledge exchange between marine biodiversity research and management: An Australian case study

“…Research funders also have the chance to influence how we engage (e.g., monitoring meetings) and evaluate research and program success (e.g., through funding priorities and the metrics of monitoring). There is a need for greater appreciation, nurturing, performance monitoring and rewarding of KE skills and careers (e.g., interpersonal skills) for all actors (Bednarek et al, 2018;Boyd & Kramer, 2017) which could be jointly developed in teams of researchers, end-users, and knowledge brokers through organizations or the hub (Topp et al, 2020). In conclusion, our study shows…”

“…First, many studies (including this one) suggest the need for further institutionalization and formalization of KE Pearman & Cravens, 2022;Tuohy et al, in press). But beyond the largely siloed analyses of strong leadership required in research project leaders (Cvitanovic, Wyborn, et al, 2021) and end-user organizations (Boyd & Kramer, 2017), lessons from the hub and it's precursors (Campbell et al, 2015) show that strong leadership is required from all KE roles. Research funders also have the chance to influence how we engage (e.g., monitoring meetings) and evaluate research and program success (e.g., through funding priorities and the metrics of monitoring).…”

“…Challenges can originate from the decisionmaking process itself, cultural differences between research and management, academic disincentives, differing timeframes in research and decision-making, access to data, and the wide range of costs associated with interactive KE (e.g., time, money, capacity) (Cvitanovic et al, 2016;DIISRTE, 2012;Karcher, Cvitanovic, Shellock, et al, 2022;Walsh et al, 2019). As a consequence of those challenges, science-policy success is rare (Boyd & Kramer, 2017). Thus, additional research is needed to identify enabling factors through which research and decisionmaking can interact more effectively and more sustainably over time.…”

“…Through those capacities (e.g., iteration and collaboration), hub researchers could then improve the policy relevance of their work through the principles of co-design and co-production.Besides the efforts taken by researchers and the hub (e.g., knowledge broker), liaison roles within end-user organizations were critical. The role of liaisons is increasingly understood in the literature, for example described as "science-decision stewards" inBoyd and Kramer (2017): "Most of the success stories featured a single individual who acted as a catalyst, liaison, and knowledge manager"…”