Bill Overview
Title: Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act
Description: This bill requires certain state and local prosecutors to report data on criminal referrals and outcomes of cases involving murder or non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, arson, or any offense involving the illegal use or possession of a firearm. The reporting requirement applies to state and local prosecutors in a jurisdiction with 380,000 or more persons that receives funding under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program. The report must contain data on cases referred for prosecution, cases declined for prosecution, cases resulting in a plea agreement with the defendant, cases initiated against defendants with previous arrests or convictions, and defendants charged who were released or eligible for bail.
Sponsors: Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11]
Target Audience
Population: Residents in large US jurisdictions (population ≥ 380,000) receiving Byrne JAG funding
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The legislation mandates reporting by prosecutors in jurisdictions with populations of at least 380,000, implying these areas will directly experience changes due to increased data scrutiny.
- The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program provides funding to many localities, suggesting those areas are the target for this reporting requirement.
- Prosecutors and their offices are directly impacted since they must adhere to new reporting requirements.
- The general populace living in affected jurisdictions will be indirectly impacted as the prosecution process may change due to requirements for transparency and reporting.
Reasoning
- This policy primarily impacts residents in large jurisdictions where prosecutors will be under increased pressure to report detailed outcomes on certain crimes. Affected individuals will differ largely by occupation, locale, and involvement with the justice system.
- There will be suburbs or rural locales close to large cities that won't directly fall under the policy because they are either not large enough or don't receive Byrne JAG funding.
- Prosecutorial offices in these jurisdictions will bear the operational burden, which might uphold or enhance public trust in the judicial system but lead to potential pushback from staff due to increased workload.
- A segment of the population may indirectly feel safer due to perceived increases in judicial transparency, potentially increasing their wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
School Teacher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transparent legal procedures might increase community safety.
- Extra scrutiny on local prosecutors could deter crime over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Prosecutor (Denver, CO)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional workload is stressful.
- Increased transparency could improve public trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopes for increased prosecutor accountability.
- Safety concerns continue to linger regardless.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Paralegal (Chicago, IL)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy might highlight overcharging in some cases.
- The transparency could advance judicial fairness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Community Organizer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reporting requirements may not address systemic bias.
- Documented transparency is a step but not a complete solution.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased transparency might prevent repeat crimes.
- Hopeful that data might lead to informed policy decisions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Police Officer (Houston, TX)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- An increase in successful prosecutions could deter crime.
- Reasons for pleas should be scrutinized in context.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Graduate Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy will be insightful for researchers studying justice system.
- Data could drive more equitable legal practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Public Defender (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill may highlight prosecutorial discretion tendencies.
- Public accountability might weigh against genuine due process concerns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Victim Support Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More collected data can assist in patterns of offender behavior.
- Ensuring equitable treatment regardless of victim background remains crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $70000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $90000000)
Year 2: $72000000 (Low: $52000000, High: $93000000)
Year 3: $74000000 (Low: $53000000, High: $96000000)
Year 5: $78000000 (Low: $57000000, High: $101000000)
Year 10: $86000000 (Low: $63000000, High: $112000000)
Year 100: $126000000 (Low: $93000000, High: $168000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring that the state and local prosecutors have the infrastructure to manage and report the required data without significant operational disruption.
- Monitoring the impact of increased administrative burden on the prosecutors in terms of efficiency and effectiveness in handling cases.
- The anticipated reactions from state and local agencies regarding additional federal oversight as a result of the bill.