Table of Contents

Comparative Criminal Procedure

Comparative Criminal Procedure

Research Handbooks in Comparative Law series

Edited by Jacqueline E. Ross and Stephen C. Thaman

This Handbook presents innovative research that compares different criminal procedure systems by focusing on the mechanisms by which legal systems seek to avoid error, protect rights, ground their legitimacy, expand lay participation in the criminal process and develop alternatives to criminal trials, such as plea bargaining, as well as alternatives to the criminal process as a whole, such as intelligence operations. The criminal procedures examined in this book include those of the United States, Germany, France, Spain, Russia, India, Latin America, Taiwan and Japan, among others.

Chapter 4: Mechanisms for screening prosecutorial charging decisions in the United States and Taiwan

Tzu-te Wen and Andrew D. Leipold

Subjects: law - academic, comparative law, criminal law and justice


No one would deny the importance or scope of prosecutorial charging authority in the modern world, regardless of whether the prosecutor is operating in an adversarial or a continental criminal justice system. Along with law enforcement, prosecutors are the gatekeepers of the criminal system, deciding whether a person should be criminally charged, diverted, left to non-criminal sanctions, or ignored. Once a person is committed to the criminal process, the prosecutor has enormous discretion to decide what charge to set, and whether to offer a deal in return for a guilty plea. And in many cases, a prosecutor has the ability to influence the sentence that follows a conviction, either directly through bargaining or through a recommendation to the court.All observers agree that the prosecutorial power is vast (Allen et al., 2011; Davis, 1978), and in the United States there is theoretical agreement that vast power creates a large potential for abuse (Davis, 2001),1 but little agreement on the amount of actual abuse. Likewise, prosecutors in Taiwan have been criticized by scholars, lawyers, and judges for bringing criminal charges where there is insufficient evidence to indict, or where there is an ill or unjustified motivation or influence behind the charge (Wang, 2010).2If the prosecutor employs her authority too aggressively, the result can be unfounded or overzealous charging – accusations that are not supported by sufficient evidence to convict.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information