CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Prosecutorial discretion

principle in numerous legal systems

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJul 27, 2026
Entity authorityQ11636127 ↗
Source-derived summary

In common law, the principle of prosecutorial discretion allows public prosecutors a wide latitude to decide whether or not to charge a person for a crime, and which charges to file. A similar principle in continental law countries is called the principle of opportunity.

There is a divide between countries where prosecutions are generally discretionary and where prosecutions are mandatory (known as the legality principle or compulsory prosecution). In addition, in some countries prosecutors operate independently with more discretion vs in a hierarchical system that require more conformity.

Countries following civil law are predominately based on the principle of compulsory prosecution, although the principle of opportunity is encoded in law in the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Slovenia, Belgian law and France. Some similar provisions exist in and in Estonian law.

By country

United States

In the United States federal system, the prosecutor has wide latitude in determining when, who, how, and even whether to prosecute for apparent violations of federal criminal law. The prosecutor's broad discretion in such areas as initiating or forgoing prosecutions, selecting or recommending specific charges, and terminating prosecutions by accepting guilty pleas has been recognized on numerous occasions by the courts. Prosecutors may decide not to press the charges even when there is probable cause, if they determine that there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction. Prosecutors may dismiss charges in this situation by seeking a voluntary dismissal or nolle prosequi.

Editorial summary

“Prosecutorial discretion” enters the record as principle in numerous legal systems. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Prosecutorial, discretion and principle can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current 234-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Prosecutorial, discretion and principle.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Prosecutorial discretion” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Prosecutorial, discretion and principle provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q11636127. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Prosecutorial discretion”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Prosecutorial discretion primary sources, Prosecutorial discretion archive and Prosecutorial research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Prosecutorial discretion”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Prosecutorial discretion” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.