Punishment after the process? A recidivism analysis of dismissed/withdrawn cases and declined arrests in Philadelphia

• In Event: Innovation and Reform in Prosecution: Outreach, Declination, Diversion, and Case Outcomes

Abstract

The American Bar Association defines the duty of a prosecutor as “to seek justice within the bounds of the law, not merely to convict." However, the success of prosecutors is often measured solely by their ability to achieve a conviction; a case that does not result in a conviction is considered a loss. Meanwhile, recidivism is often used as a measure of success post-conviction. The media often portrays withdrawals, dismissals, and declinations as a direct cause of increasing crime rates, but what happens to dismissed cases and declined arrests in terms of recidivism? This study seeks to investigate recidivism after a case is withdrawn or dismissed, and when a case is never opened in the first place, i.e., following a “declination” to charge an arrest. Define recidivism as any new case statewide following case disposition or arrest declination with a one-year lookahead period. Within a year, roughly one in four people whose original case was dismissed/withdrawn, and one in three people whose arrest was not charged, were charged with a new case. We discuss the implications for defining “justice” the effectiveness of punishment within the criminal legal system, and for policy both within and outside the office.

Authors

• Juncheng Liu, Philadelphia District Attorney's Office

• Charles J. Arayata, Philadelphia District Attorney's Office

• Oren Gur, Philadelphia District Attorney's Office

• Wes Weaver, Philadelphia District Attorney's Office