Prosecutorial discretion
principle in numerous legal systems

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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Prosecutorial discretion”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Prosecutorial discretion primary sources, Prosecutorial discretion archive and Prosecutorial research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Prosecutorial discretion”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
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.