{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018892508143322474, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003257328990228013, 'mean_word_length': 5.320987654320987, '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 Nonprosecution of Sexual Abuse and Informal Justice

Within recent years, considerable attention has focused upon the appropriate criminal justice response to cases of child sexual abuse. The present article examines prosecutorial discretion for sexual abuse under the domain of a recent mandatory district attorney reporting law (Massachusetts Chapter 288). Utilizing case files for one metropolitan jurisdiction, this research analyzes the reasons cited for the screening decision not to prosecute sexual abuse and the related use of informal dispositions in these cases. The study found that 45% of the cases referred to this prosecutor's office resulted in a nonprosecution decision. The primary reasons given were witness noncooperation and evidentiary problems, which were cited in over two-thirds of the cases. For all but two of these nonprosecuted cases, some informal disposition took place. For most, the alleged perpetrator was out of the victim's home, with another third involving a restraining or no visitation order against the accused offender, or the removal of the victim from the home. Thus, although formal criminal court prosecution was recommended in just over one-half of the cases, some form of family intervention to reduce the “at-risk” situation for the child victim took place in virtually all of the cases. These results suggest the importance of considering informal, discretionary techniques and dispositions as well as formal actions in evaluating a criminal justice response to child sexual abuse.