My prompt for the posts below were to "explain one internal factor and one external factor that affect discretionary decision making. Why did you select these factors as being influential? Can you provide one example you have seen in public or in the media of each of these factors impacting discretionary decision making?"

In response to the posts below

1. State whether you agree or disagree with the factors selected below in each post seperately. Talk about post one by itself, talk about post 2 by itself.

If you agree with the factor, explain why you support it.

If you do not agree, explain why other factors may be more influential than the one mentioned in the initial post.

POST 1

Internal vs. External Discretion One internal factor affecting discretionary decision making is personal bias. A person's belief system may have a large influence on the decisions that they make when faced with two competing choices. Personal biases can be formed biologically, such as through inherited traits, through modeling, or through reinforcement (Pollock, 2021, p. 71). An external factor that can influence discretionary decision making are laws and regulations (Pollock, 2021, p. 85). Taking into consideration applicable laws and regulations when faced with a discretionary decision can have a significant impact on the decision-making process. A recent instance of judicial discretionary decision making is in the case of Indiana v. Richard Allen. In October of 2023, Judge Fran Gull removed Mr. Allen's court appointed defense attorneys Brad Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin in an in chambers meeting, citing gross negligence (Lambe, 2023). This action by the judge was done off of the official court record with the defendant not present. Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin, following their removal, attempted to enter their appearance in the case pro bono. Judge Gull denied their request to represent Mr. Allen pro bono, and assigned new court appointed defense counsel for Mr. Allen. A Writ of Mandamus was filed with the Indiana Supreme Court, and on January 18, 2024, the Indiana Supreme Court issued their ruling that attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin were to be reinstated as court appointed counsel for Richard Allen (Howell, 2024). The decision of Judge Gull to remove the defense attorneys off the record in an in chambers meeting was a discretionary decision that could be perceived as bias against the defense. Her citation of gross negligence was not supported by facts, rather, according to the transcript from the in chambers meeting it seemed as though her decision was based on her personal opinion toward the actions of the defense counsel. The decision by the Indiana Supreme Court represents the external factor in this matter, which Judge Gull did not take into consideration when making her decision, with them ordering the defense counsel to be reinstated. References Howell, J., Jr. (2024, January 18). Indiana supreme court reinstates richard allen's original attorneys in delphi murders case. WRTV Indianapolis. https://www.wrtv.comews/delphi/indiana-supreme- court-to-hear-arguments-surrounding-future-of-delphi-murders-case Lambe, J. (2023, October 31). Judge 'obliterated' accused delphi murderer's rights by kicking lawyers off case: Expert. Law & Crime. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-officially-removes-One internal factor to consider when making discretionary decisions is prejudices and preferences. Its easy to say you'd let someone go if they were stealing food for their family after they had a job lay-off. It's not so easy to choose whether someone that has an addiction really needs leniency to help them reform themselves. Would they really change their ways? If one had a psychological negative connotation towards addicts due to having parents as addicts could play out as a factor in the decision making process. Or allowing preferences of someone who's young to do better for their lives and believe that they need a chance to get their life together. One external factor in discretionary decisions is how one may make decisions based on the perception of others. Having a body-cam on oneself at all times would certainly influence anyone's decisions based on the more people that had access to seeing what you say and do any time they want. Having a pubilic, replayable account of your decision to not act when others would deem necessary or acting in a different way than an ordinary person on the street would could certainly raise eyebrows in a crowd. Or as a judge, having one of your rulings being written about in the paper or cited a precedence carries with it, it's own factor in when and how to exercise discretion