Discussion, Conclusion, and Recommendations

Order ready-to-submit essays. No Plagiarism Guarantee!

Note:  All our papers are written from scratch by human writers to ensure authenticity and originality.

CHAPTER V

Discussion, Conclusion, and Recommendations

Discussion Comment by jim: This section of Chapter V should begin with a short introduction as this student did.

The three studies examined for this research project presented varying degrees of results for the researcher to assess. However, before that “study interpretation” is discussed, a treatment of the research questions and their corresponding outcomes is warranted. The research questions essentially served as a guideline for the project. It was not discovered until the Chapter II Literature Review that the questions would either produce a direct answer, fail to answer the question but serve as a “bridge” to further research, or hold no relevance to the current study because they did not produce credible findings that could be pulled from earlier research and examined in a scholarly manner. Ten research questions were posed at the beginning of this research project and will be repeated here in numerical order. A very brief examination of the answers to those questions will follow leading into the interpretation of the three studies reviewed in Chapter IV.

Research Question 1 Comment by jim: Your subheadings should be the same: Research Question 1. This should be your first research question from Chapter I. Here you want to discuss what you found for this question. Relate the question to data found in Chapters IV/II.

Q: What conditions are provided to celebrity defendants (actors, musicians, athletes, etc.) during criminal sentencing that are not offered to average citizens?

30

As tempting as it would have been for the researcher to expose the misbehavior of celebrity defendants and their subsequent humility that becomes transparent during the criminal sentencing process, the researcher chose to ignore a path that would have moved this project away from a serious study and into the realm of tabloid journalism. Thus, this question served as a bridge to the general conditions in the legal system focusing on disparate versus equal treatment of criminal defendants and the conflicting viewpoints held on the topic by researchers.

Research Question 2 Comment by jim: Follow the same pattern as Question 1 above

Q: Do cases involving public servants (elected officials) and high profile individuals (corporate executives, etc.) receive easier handling during criminal sentencing because of the attention that status and wealth bring to the court in comparison to cases involving standard defendants with no coverage whatsoever?

This question is nearly identical to the first question with the exception of replacing “celebrities” with public servants and corporate figureheads. Again, the question provided a bridge to opinions on equality in the American legal system as explicated by commentators representing both sides of the current debate on whether or not parity in the courts is fact or fiction.

Research Question 3

Q: What is the average caseload of a private criminal defense attorney in comparison to a public defender? Additionally, what are the average hours spent per single case between both sets of counsel?

These dual questions provided answers in Chapter II that could be considered approximate figures. Information concerning private legal defense was not obtained in this study; therefore, the focus remained on data that could be pulled from public agencies. Caseloads were analyzed in Study Number 2 and will be discussed later in this chapter as part of the interpretation of results. The hours spent on a single case touches on the theme of “time devoted to legal matters,” which will also be addressed in the following pages.

Research Question 4

31

Q: What are some additional investigatory resources utilized by private counsel to defend clients that are not available to the public defender’s office due to limited funding?

Because data was not collected pertaining to private defense counsel, the only time this question was addressed in the project was in Chapter II. However, the research reviewed did acknowledge that a variance in access to legal resources could lead to differences in how individuals are treated within the boundaries of the legal system.

Research Question 5

Q: What is the average yearly salary of a private criminal defense attorney in comparison to a public defender? In essence, does one get what he or she pays for?

This question failed to produce an answer or hold any relevance to the study as no credible forms of research material were discovered that connected the earnings of criminal defense attorneys to the treatment of defendants during the sentencing phase of cases.

Research Question 6

Q: Approximately how many years of criminal defense experience do private attorneys possess compared to lawyers working for the public defender’s office?

Again, the question posed by the researcher did not hold any importance over the study. There were no reliable sources of research examined during the literature review for Chapter II that could corroborate that years of criminal defense experience accumulated as a public defender were not as valuable as knowledge earned as private defense counsel. If anything, the material indicated that experience is experience regardless of where it is earned.

Research Question 7

Q: In the State of California, approximately how many criminal defendants obtained private counsel and how many offenders were assigned counsel?

32

This question was not answered in the research project. However, the study collected by the researcher to address this question ended up becoming the source used as Study Number 2 in

Chapter IV to corroborate or invalidate Hypothesis Number 2. As such, the results of the study will be addressed in the following pages of this chapter under the subsection entitled “Interpretation of the Results.”

Research Question 8

Q: How have celebrities, public servants, and high profile individuals been sentenced in criminal cases over the years as proposed by prosecutors and approved by judges? Is there a recurring historical trend or is the sentencing of “the famous” a new phenomenon?

This question was not directly answered in the research project. Instead, it served as a bridge to additional studies involving decision-making by prosecutors and action performed by judges. The research material that was intended to answer this particular question ended up becoming Study Number 3 in Chapter IV. Once again, the results of that item will be documented in the following pages of this chapter.

Research Question 9

Q: How severe is the degree of political and business pressure felt by prosecutors when recommending sentences for upper echelon criminal defendants in comparison to standard offenders? By judges to approve said sentences following the prosecutor’s recommendation for both types of defendants?

33

The question was interesting as the answer discovered was strangely “matter of fact.” In essence, some degree of impartial treatment does exist in the legal system because some individuals are simply considered too valuable by the government to prosecute. How and why this favoritism occurs appears to remain a mystery and is not grounded in science or even some measurable attribute that could serve as a precursor to “preference” in court. Compounding the confusion is the behavior of prosecutors who appear to be serving as “clock watchers” whose

caseloads are so unmanageable that their primary mission has become one of “case management” rather then administration of justice. Lastly, judges appear to take their decisions relatively seriously. This is due in part to the fact that their choices will shape and define the law moving forward.

Research Question 10

Q: What forms of alternative sentencing are generally offered and approved for “well to do” criminal defendants that are not presented and granted to average citizens?

This question was not answered in the research project. The researcher did not feel that the question was appropriate as the study began to shift once Study Number 1, Study Number 2, and Study Number 3 were presented as primary research material, which would address the hypotheses of the project.

In terms of report significance, research questions 1 and 2 became enveloped in Study Number 1 and tied to Hypothesis Number 1. Questions, 3, 4, and 7 were associated with Study Number 2 and connected to Hypothesis Number 2. Lastly, questions 8 and 9 were linked with Study Number 3 and joined to Hypothesis Number 3. As stated earlier, some of the questions produced partial answers, some provided direct answers, and some were not valid because the project began to change shape and direction as the research continually evolved. Comment by jim: This is a very important paragraph. You want to tell the reader the association of the Research Questions to their respective Study and Hypothesis.

Interpretation of the Results Comment by jim: Use this same subheading

34

Study Number 1: The research conducted by Payne, Dabney, and Ekhomu in 2013 focused on higher and lower class individuals employed in the field of health care that were convicted of criminal action. Their status, for lack of a better word, was determined by the position they held while employed. Surprisingly, the study found that higher status offenders with greater earning potential were more likely to be sentenced to prison, placed on community Comment by jim: Use this same level 5 heading. Briefly discuss Study 1 from Chapter IV indicating whether Study 1 answered/partially answered/did not answer/or gave the opposite conclusion for the Research Questions tied to Study 1.

service, and fined. In contrast, lower status offenders with less financial power were more likely to receive a sentence comprised of county jail and probation with less susceptibility to be fined at the rate of their “higher class” health care counterparts. These results were considered surprising in terms of what the perceived outcome was “supposed” to be with the wealthy being treated favorably while the poor were recipients of much harsher penalties.

Study Number 2: The research performed by Farole in 2010 was aimed at measuring the performance of public defender offices at the state and county levels. The main discovery was that caseloads managed by counsel working for a public entity are immense. Further, there are few options for the agencies employing these attorneys to refuse work or limit the number of matters that are presented to them. As such, time management becomes an issue for these legal professionals where the quality of their work is impacted to the detriment of the defendant requiring their legal expertise in a court of law. New questions were posed by the data revealing that public defender offices that do possess the right to refuse or limit work actually reduce the number of cases assigned to their full time employed litigating attorneys. Therefore, does “control” of caseloads lead to more free time to devote to current issues the attorney has been placed in charge of? Secondly, is “quality” merely a surface issue in this topic with the true underlying problem being one of “time”? Time for defense matters has been a consistent and recurring issue since the Chapter II Literature Review. Comment by jim: Same as above

35

Study Number 3: The study conducted by Hagan in 1974 did not yield the results the researcher anticipated they would. In actuality, the researcher personally felt this study would be the predominant piece of material analyzed in the entire project, which would unequivocally answer the question about wealthy and poor defendants being treated equally in a court of law. Instead, the study placed the researcher’s third hypothesis in a complete state of flux because Comment by jim: Same as above

Hagan’s findings over forty years ago essentially stated what the researcher’s recommendations for future study were going to be. On one hand, the researcher feels disappointed that his third hypothesis could not produce one usable interpretation. However, the researcher also feels justified that another researcher from a completely different period of time has recognized similar observations of what needs to be done in the future and where this issue is headed if it is ever going to be resolved to satisfaction. By no means does the researcher of this project feel that his study is on the same level as Hagan’s work. The researcher of this project merely feels satisfied in knowing that his assessment wasn’t completely out of line.

Limitations of the Study Comment by jim: You will have a better idea of some of the Limitations when you get to this point in your project.

36

The primary limitation on this research project remains lack of involvement in the study by human subjects. The researcher personally feels the quality of information that could have been provided to the entirety of the study was severely impacted because time did not permit the admittance of data collected from personal interviews with judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and criminal defendants. Secondary data analysis and existing document/statistical research is an effective method of conducting research. However, it cannot replace human interaction and does not convey personal experiences from working professionals in the field. Secondly, it does not capture the emotion expressed by those accused of criminal action, the defendants. The absence of human participation in the study was missed and is necessary in future research on this topic because the subject matter requires “personalization” that will not be properly captured in numbers or words alone. Criminal justice administration involves people. Research geared toward answering questions related to topics in this field cannot exclude the most important resource in this arena…the people. The researcher now understands how important people are to this study because he did not have access to them.

Conclusion Comment by jim: Here is the really “big” section of Chapter V.Here you will address each of your Hypotheses (or Hypothesis) and tell the reader your conclusion(s) for your Hypotheses(sis). There are three general conclusions you can use: Hypothesis is supported/Hypothesis is partially supported/Hypothesis is not supported.

The conclusion of this research project is going to restate the hypotheses in numerical order and then disclose the final position of the researcher after all materials and studies have been taken into consideration.

Hypothesis Number 1: There is a correlation between an individual’s social class and financial status and his or her treatment during sentencing at the conclusion of a criminal case.

The hypothesis is only partially supported by the information contained in this study. The research conducted by Payne, Dabney, and Ekhomu did reveal disparities in how those of different social classes and economic brackets are sentenced after committing a criminal action. However, the results of the study took only one segment of the public into consideration which was people employed in the field of health care who committed a crime. The research was not a universal project encompassing individuals from different social groups, economic sets, or fields of employment. As such, the hypothesis cannot be fully supported.

Hypothesis Number 2: There is a correlation between the social class and financial status of a criminal defendant and his or her quality of legal representation during criminal sentencing.

37

The hypothesis is inconclusive at this time pending further study. The research conducted by Farole indicated that workloads in public defense agencies that are granted the power to limit or refuse cases results in a reduced workload for their attorneys. The data indicated that additional time may be available to attorneys to address other matters that have been assigned to them previously. It is evident from prior research that time equals quality in criminal defense but issues of quality cannot be substantiated or invalidated until the topic of “time management” is examined in detail to uncover how much impact time, or lack of, has on a criminal defense matter. This topic does require further study and will be recommended in the following pages.

Hypothesis Number 3: There is a correlation between the social class and financial status of a criminal defendant and the recommendations in criminal sentencing proposed by prosecutors and approved by judges.

As previously stated, Hagan’s research led the researcher of this study down a completely different path than what he anticipated he would find within the study conducted in 1974. Therefore, the third hypothesis is neither validated nor invalidated. Rather, the third hypothesis remains in a state between inconclusive and “never reviewed.” On one hand, the third hypothesis has never directly been addressed even though the study is near its end. However, the material gathered during the Chapter II Literature Review has indicated there is certain behavior exhibited by prosecutors and judges during criminal sentencing. The researcher is not saying said conduct is tied to social class and financial status. The researcher is merely indicating that research conducted as part of this study has indicated that further exploration will be necessary to arrive at a determination of soundness or baselessness on this specific hypothesis.

Recommendations Comment by jim: This is your section of Chapter V to elaborate on all of your ideas gathered from your study to make recommendations.

38

The researcher finds it ironic that Hagan’s study and his recommendations are playing such a prominent role in the recommendations of this study over forty years later. Like the previous research conducted in 1974, the researcher of this study feels that arrest decisions, charging determinations, plea bargain options, bail matters, and probation possibilities all play their part in the treatment of criminal defendants. As such, each component needs to be examined individually and as part of a larger study to continue research on this topic. Further, the relationship between court procedures, case volume, and attorney workload must be studied because time is a critical issue in criminal justice. The current state of affairs leads one to believe that court is simply a “cattle line” where expediency rules the day because the docket demands

39

a certain level of urgency in order to maintain some level of perceived control. But, time is tied to quality and quality is directly related to whether or not criminal defendants are truly receiving the defense they deserve. More questions have emerged then what the researcher started this project with. Thus, the data, discussion, and conclusions appear to reflect that before an answer to the question is given on whether government officials engage in sentencing disparity based on social class and wealth, many more sub-levels of this topic need to be examined first.