Progressive and Traditional Orientations to Prosecution: An Empirical Assessment in Four Prosecutorial Offices

• Date: 01 March 2021
• Published date: 01 March 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854820956672
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2021, Vol. 48, No. 3, March 2021, 354 –372.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820956672

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

354

PROGRESSIVE AND TRADITIONAL

ORIENTATIONS TO PROSECUTION

An Empirical Assessment in Four Prosecutorial

Offices

RYAN C. MELDRUM

Florida International University

DON STEMEN

Loyola University Chicago

BESIKI LUKA KUTATELADZE

Florida International University

In recent years, accounts of the so-called progressive prosecutor have been juxtaposed against the more traditional, law-and-

order prosecutor in the United States. Yet, little effort has been made to empirically investigate these orientations among

prosecutors. In this multijurisdictional study, prosecutors were asked to rate the importance of a variety of prosecutorial

priorities. A factor analysis of these ratings indicates the existence of two distinct orientations toward prosecution. The first

reflects a progressive orientation emphasizing social justice priorities, and the second reflects a traditional orientation empha-

sizing priorities pertaining to formal aspects of case processing. Results also indicate that scoring higher on the progressive

orientation is associated with holding less punitive attitudes toward criminal defendants, whereas scoring higher on the tra-

ditional orientation is associated with holding more punitive attitudes. Discussion centers on the implications of the findings

for recent calls regarding the reform of the criminal justice system.

Keywords: prosecution; progressive; traditional; punitive attitudes; survey

INTRODUCTION

The field of prosecution in the United States is evolving. As a new wave of prosecutors

take over elected offices, they bring novel visions and priorities to prosecution (Bazelon &

Krinsky, 2018; Fair and Justice Prosecution, 2018), campaigning on platforms of ending

AUTHORS’ NOTE: This work would not have been possible without Elizabeth Webster and Rebecca

Richardson. We also want to thank Maria Arndt, Dylan Matthews, and Sadhika Soor for their research assis-

tance, and Peter Lehmann for assisting with the data imputation procedures. We are very grateful to our four

partner prosecution offices located in Tampa, Jacksonville, Chicago, and Milwaukee and to the prosecutors

who contributed their time to this study. The views expressed in this article are ours alone and do not neces-

sarily represent the position of the MacArthur Foundation or our partner prosecution offices. The study was

supported by Grant G-1706-152065 from the MacArthur Foundation.Correspondence concerning this article

should be addressed to Ryan C. Meldrum, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida

International University, 11200 SW 8th St, PCA-364B, Miami, FL 33199; e-mail: rmeldrum@fiu.edu.

956672CJBXXX10.1177/0093854820956672Criminal Justice and BehaviorMeldrum et al. / Progressive and Traditional Orientations to Prosecution

research-article2020

Meldrum et al. / PROGRESSIVE AND TRADITIONAL ORIENTATIONS TO PROSECUTION 355

mass incarceration, addressing racial and ethnic disparities, and increasing prosecutorial

accountability and transparency (“The Paradox,” 2018; Sklansky, 2017a, 2017b). These

platforms are often seen as at odds with tough-on-crime policies generally advanced by

other chief prosecutors (Davis, 1998). As one veteran prosecutor describes it, these new

prosecutors “model a more proactive, prevention-oriented, and community-focused con-

ception of their role in the justice system” (Krinsky & Satterberg, 2017, para. 9). Two ori-

entations to prosecution have emerged from this discourse: the traditional prosecutor

focused on indictments, convictions, and harsh sentences and the progressive prosecutor

focused on increasing diversion, reducing disparities, and improving community engage-

ment (Green & Burke, 2012). This discourse, however, has focused largely on highlighting

the orientations of elected prosecutors (“The Paradox,” 2018; Sklansky, 2017a, 2017b).

Although a growing body of qualitative studies has uncovered variation in line prosecutors’

attitudes about their work and identity (Levine, 2005; Levine & Wright, 2012), little is

known about whether line prosecutors conform to these two orientations.

Examining line prosecutors’ orientations is critical to determine whether evolving narra-

tives of elected prosecutors reflect the views of their staff. Marked differences in prosecuto-

rial orientations may diminish staff buy-in of new reforms and limit their impact. A widening

divide among orientations within an office can also adversely affect staff morale, as line

prosecutors may feel forced or disheartened to implement policies that are different from

their views of the prosecutor’s role and responsibilities. More importantly, line prosecutors’

adherence to traditional and progressive orientations may directly or subconsciously influ-

ence their approach to a case and subsequent decision-making.

Using structured surveys administered in four prosecutors’ offices in the United States,

we evaluate the existence of traditional and progressive orientations among line prosecu-

tors. Furthermore, as a starting point for assessing the utility of these orientations in under-

standing prosecutorial decision-making, we also investigate whether they are differentially

associated with punitive attitudes held by line prosecutors. Prior to describing our study

methodology and presenting the results of our analyses, we first discuss the ways in which

the role of the prosecutor has evolved in recent decades and the juxtaposition between tra-

ditional and progressive views of prosecution. We then direct attention to prior research on

prosecutorial attitudes and the perspectives that inform the current investigation.

TRADITIONAL AND PROGRESSIVE ORIENTATIONS IN PROSECUTION

Scholars recognize that prosecutors in the United States occupy a unique, “dual role” in

the criminal justice system as both “advocates seeking conviction and ‘ministers of jus-

tice’” (Fish, 2017; Fisher, 1987). The former role views prosecutors as part of an adversarial

system in which the goal of prosecution is winning cases through conviction and punish-

ment of defendants. In contrast, the latter role acknowledges prosecutors are part of a sys-

tem of justice in which the goals of prosecution include protecting the rights of defendants,

representing the interests of victims and the community, and ensuring just outcomes in

cases. While this minister of justice role may involve conviction and lengthy sentences, it

also can involve diversion, dismissal, alternative sentences, or no prosecution at all (Fish,

2017; Fisher, 1987).

Critics argue that, influenced by both professional and cultural incentives, prosecutors his-

torically have focused on securing convictions and harsh sentences over other goals (Felkenes,

1975; Fish, 2017; Reiss, 1975). Prosecutors’ offices, for example, have based promotion on