Prosecutorial secrecy blocks both research and accountability for discretion

Evidence

The negative consequences of this disconnect are twofold. It hurts the research community by preventing them from learning from practitioners and from fresh data. The lack of meaningful partnerships also deprives the prosecutorial field of the benefits of social science advancements and hinders transparency and accountability within the prosecutorial field. As Brian Johnson puts it, “Because so much of what [prosecutors] do remains shrouded from public view, largely immune from legal review procedures, and devoid of formal systems of accountability, it is nearly impossible to adequately assess the role that excessive prosecutorial discretion plays in these crucial processes” (Johnson, 2018, no page number, see Conclusion). It is safe to say that, generally speaking, prosecutors do not understand data, like data, trust data, or see the benefit of data. Concerns for being called a racist or of having added responsibilities (e.g., having to enter new data fields into the case tracking system) have deterred much-needed change toward data-driven reforms, community engagement, and greater impartiality. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 552

Categorization

• QUESTION: This claim that ‘prosecutors do not understand data, like data, trust data, or see the benefit of data’ is a strong generalization worth interrogating—is there empirical work on prosecutors’ attitudes toward data, or is this assertion driven by a few partnerships?
• XREF: Fits with the NYU report (2017) cited at 550 and with the broader accountability literature the book’s intro cites. — connects to: Institutional cover-up delays justice until perpetrators are beyond legal reach — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk: The Collected and Unpublished…, 1755