Abstract
Prosecutors make an array of decisions impacting the lives of citizens. Should their decisions be subjected to popular oversight and control though democratic election or should prosecutors be members of professional bureaucracies insulated from the electorate? The evidence concerning the election of prosecutors suggests that the public is ill-served by them: Most incumbent chief prosecutors run unopposed, most incumbents who are opposed win, and the elections are mostly popularity contests. Elections might be improved, but having prosecutors trained and overseen by other officials knowledgeable about the demands of due process and committed to its values seems a better alternative. However, rule by prosecutorial experts itself raises a variety of questions, especially in democratic societies. Though I favor the expertise model, I concede that some of the decisions made by prosecutors are ones about which citizens in democratic societies ought to have input.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
