Are progressive chief prosecutors effective in reducing prison use and cumulative racial/ethnic disadvantage? Evidence from Florida

• Published date: 01 August 2022
• Author: Ojmarrh Mitchell,Daniela Oramas Mora,Tracey L. Sticco,Lyndsay N. Boggess
• Date: 01 August 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12598

DOI: ./- .

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Are progressive chief prosecutors effective in

reducing prison use and cumulative

racial/ethnic disadvantage? Evidence from

Florida

Ojmarrh Mitchell1Daniela Oramas Mora1Tracey L. Sticco2

Lyndsay N. Boggess2

School of Criminology and Criminal

Justice, Arizona State University,

Phoenix, Arizona, USA

Department of Criminology, University

of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA

Correspondence

Ojmarrh Mitchell, School of Criminology

and Criminal Justice, Arizona State

University, N. Central Ave., Suite ,

Phoenix, AZ , USA.

Email: ojmarrh.mitchell@asu.edu

Funding information

This project was supported by AwardNo.

-R-CX-, awarded by the

National Institute of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice. The opinions, findings, and

conclusions or recommendations

expressed in this publication are those of

the author(s) and do not necessarily

reflect those of the Department of Justice

Abstract

Research Summary: Progressive chief prosecutors,

campaigning on platforms calling for reducing prison

populations and racial/ethnic disparities, have been

elected in numerous jurisdictions across the United

States in recent years. Yet,there is no empirical research

that compares case outcomes between jurisdictions

headed by progressive and traditional chief prosecutors.

In this research, we utilize a cumulative case outcome

approach that tracks cases from arrest to disposition

to examine whether cases prosecuted under progres-

sive chief prosecutors receive less punitive sanctions and

exhibit smaller racial/ethnic disparities. We find that

cases adjudicated in progressive jurisdictions are more

likely to end without a felonyconviction and less likely to

result in a prison sentence. Racial but not generally eth-

nic disadvantage is evident in case outcomes, and racial

disparities are smaller in jurisdictions led by progressive

chief prosecutors.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and

reproduction in any medium, providedthe original work is properly cited.

©  The Authors. Criminology & Public Policypublished by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society of Criminology.

Criminology & Public Policy. ;:–. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp 535

536 MITCHELL  .

Policy Implications: The election of progressive pros-

ecutors is a radical departure from earlier approaches

aimed at controlling prison populations and mitigating

racial disparities. Instead of restricting the discretion of

criminal justice actors, voters are relying on progressive,

reformist prosecutors to use their enormous discretion

in less punitive and more egalitarian fashions. This

research indicates that progressive chief prosecutors do,

in fact, reduce prison use and racial disparities.

KEYWORDS

courts and sentencing, cumulative disadvantage, progressivepros-

ecutors, racial disparity

For nearly a decade, “progressive” chief prosecutors campaigning on platforms calling for crimi-

nal justice reform have been elected in numerous jurisdictions (Sklansky, ). Most often, these

reformist prosecutors take aim at the U.S. criminal justice system’s two most prominent features,

namely, its immense prison population and the overrepresentation of minorities therein (Davis,

;Demleitner,; Wright, ;Wrightetal.,). Toachieve these goals, progressive pros-

ecutors have called for changes to policy and practice, such as declining to prosecute or diverting

certain low-level offenses (e.g., drug possession), using “smart”/data-driven approaches to guide

prosecution, removing “poverty traps” that disproportionately affect impoverished and minority

defendants (e.g., driving on suspended licenses, money bail), and creating conviction integrity

units to review resolved cases for bias and erroneous convictions (Davis, ; Gajwani & Lesser,

; Harvard Law Review, ;Sklansky,).

The election of progressive prosecutors as a means of ending mass imprisonment and reducing

racial disparities in prison populations is a radical departure from previous efforts aimed at attain-

ing these goals. Earlier initiatives primarily attempted to control the size of prison populations

and racial/ethnic disparities by constraining the discretionary powers of judges, parole boards,

and other agents of the criminal justice system (Kramer & Ulmer, ; NationalResearch Coun-

cil, ; Tonry, , ). By contrast, voters electing reformist prosecutors are relying on them

to use their broad discretionary powers in less punitive and more equitable ways (Davis, ;

Hessick & Morse, ; Levin, ;Wrightetal.,).Yet, to our knowledge, no research empir-

ically assesses whether punitiveness and racial/ethnic disparities are ameliorated in jurisdictions

led by progressive chief prosecutors in comparison to traditional prosecutors.

In this research, we empirically assess these issues using a cumulative disadvantage framework

that tracks case outcomes from initial filing to disposition. For decades scholars have called

for research that examines how group status affects the full course of case processing (Baumer,

; Blumstein et al., ; Hagan, ; Kurlychek & Johnson, ;Spohn,;Ulmer,).

Despite these calls, only a handful of studies have tracked the full court process to measure

cumulative disadvantage—mainly due to a lack of accessible data on preconviction decision

making. The limited access to data on prosecutors’ decision making not only undermines efforts

to estimate cumulative racial disadvantages but also removes from scrutiny the many important