{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021612635078969242, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.473118279569892, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Impact of Arizona's Mandatory Drug Treatment Law on Prosecutorial Plea Bargaining in Drug Cases

Passage of mandatory drug treatment laws continues, but research has yet to examine whether imprisoned low-level offenders (e.g., possession, use, and paraphernalia offenders) may be the product of negotiated plea arrangements. We examine the extent to which prosecutors adjust drug offense seriousness through plea bargaining practices in response to the passage of Arizona's mandatory drug treatment law. A sample of incarcerated drug offenders in Arizona was constructed and data were collected from prosecution and sentencing case files in four counties. Findings show plea bargaining practices play a significant role in the classification and imprisonment of low-level drug cases. Incarcerated marijuana offenders were not first- or second-time offenders, nor were they treated more harshly than other drug offenders. Imprisoned low-level offenders have serious and extensive criminal histories, yet the effect of prior record in plea bargaining outcomes is different pre- and post-mandatory drug treatment. Policy implications regarding plea bargaining practices of drug offenders are discussed.