Project Abstract

Abstract
Discretion and the criminalization of certain behaviors have been significant topics of debate in the criminal justice system. This research project delves into the complexities of discretion as it pertains to the decision-making processes of law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges. The study aims to investigate how discretion influences the criminalization of behaviors, particularly focusing on how subjective judgments and biases can impact the outcomes of legal cases. The research project employs a mixed-methods approach, utilizing both quantitative data analysis and qualitative interviews with criminal justice professionals. By examining real-life cases and conducting interviews with those involved in the criminal justice system, the study seeks to uncover the various factors that influence the exercise of discretion. This includes exploring the role of individual beliefs, societal norms, institutional pressures, and legal guidelines in shaping decisions that lead to the criminalization of certain behaviors. Furthermore, the research project aims to shed light on the potential consequences of discretionary decision-making in the criminal justice system. By analyzing the outcomes of cases where discretion played a significant role, the study seeks to identify patterns of disparity, injustice, and discrimination that may arise from subjective decision-making processes. Through a critical examination of these issues, the research project aims to contribute to ongoing discussions about the need for reform and increased accountability in the criminal justice system. Overall, this research project seeks to provide valuable insights into the complexities of discretion and its impact on the criminalization of behaviors. By exploring the decision-making processes of key actors in the criminal justice system, the study aims to highlight the various factors that can influence the outcomes of legal cases. Through a comprehensive analysis of real-life cases and interviews with criminal justice professionals, the research project aims to contribute to a better understanding of how discretion operates in practice and the potential implications it can have on the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice system.

Project Overview

Enforcement of federal environmental law is complex. Central to the efficacy of enforcement is the role of prosecutors and judges in exercising their discretion over which violations to prosecute and what sanctions to impose. In the context of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), discretion is exercised in an institutional framework of marginal deterrence, criminal sanctions, broad prosecutorial discretion, and judicial discretion constrained by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. After a description of the CWA institutional framework for enforcement, a review of legal, economic, and criminal justice dimensions of exercising discretion is provided.

It is concluded that while broad prosecutorial discretion is justified on economic efficiency grounds, extending criminal sanctions to outcomes lacking violator intent or control is likely to result in the over-criminalization of environmental law. Equally troubling, if judicial discretion is used to impose significant downward departures from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the trivialization of CWA enforcement is inevitable. Thus, overzealous prosecution runs the risk of creating over-deterrence and stripping criminal sanctions of their moral stigma, while lax criminal sanctioning undermines deterrence objectives and minimizes the importance of violating federal environmental law itself. Policy implications of recent sanctioning trends, as well as future research needs, are also explored