ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS
AND CRAFTING SOLUTIONS
 Lingering and historical issues
 Unique time period issues
 Non-exhaustive list
 Resources limit justice administration
 3 primary needs
 Sufficient number of trained and qualified judges
 Adequate support staff
 Acceptable physical plants (offices and courtrooms)
 23% of criminal justice budget for judicial and legal services
 Compare with police and corrections budgets
 21% of justice system personnel in judicial/legal services
 Raises issues about coequality of government branches
 Priority of the American Judicature Society
 Creation of the Center for Judicial Independence
 Issues associated with judicial independence
 Budgets
 Courts do not control their own budgets
 Legislature determines the budget
 Legislature determines the number of judgeships authorized
 Court Jurisdictions


Courts do not have complete jurisdictional authority
Can be expanded or contracted by the legislature




State judicial changes due to unpopular decisions
Aware of public sentiment
Obligation to campaign contributors
Not applicable to federal judges
 Elections
 Increase in court management positions
 Concern about increasing bureaucracy
 All state and federal courts have administrative arm
 Administrative office of courts
 Professionally trained management personnel
 Appointed by judges
 Functions




Budgeting
Personnel management
Jury management
Case scheduling
 Individuals act as their own attorney in a legal matter
 Focus of the American Judicature Society
 May upset the goals of courtroom work groups
 Group cohesion
 Disposition of cases
 Reducing uncertainty
 Expansion began in the 1970s
 Alternative to lengthy and expensive adjudication
 Is institutionalized and mandatory in many courts
 Reasons for utilizing ADR




Quicker disposition of routine cases
Lower expenses to the parties involved
Reduction in the need for outside parties
Less congestion and expense for the court system
 Types of ADR




Negotiation
Mediation
Arbitration
Hybrid ADR

Both parties want to settle the dispute

Parties engage in discussion to try to resolve differences

No third party involvement


Often results in a compromise where each party gains
something
Less likely to be successful if viewed as a zero-sum game

Utilizes a third party to intervene between the parties

Mediator’s role is to help the parties reach a resolution that is
acceptable to both sides

Non-adversarial process that relies on cooperation

Mediators may or may not have formal training

Mediator meets separately with each side, then brings them
together to reach a solution

Commonly used in divorce disputes

Dependent upon compromise

More formal method of ADR

May be governed by state law

Arbitrator makes a final decision to settle the dispute

Parties agree beforehand that the arbitrator’s decision is final

Common arbitration matters
 Labor and management disputes
 Contract negotiations
 Credit disputes

Rent-a-Judge Programs
 Disputing parties hire an attorney or retired judge
 Dispute is resolved through a bench trial
 Concerns about secrecy and cost

Med-Arb
 Combination of mediation and arbitration
 Dispute is first taken to a mediator
 If an agreement cannot be reached, the case is taken to arbitration

Minitrials




Similar to rent-a-judge
Disputes are distilled to basic elements
Parties have limited motions and time to argue the case
Judge advises parties about a likely outcome if the case proceeds

Double victimization in sexual assault cases

Solutions




Female officers used for sexual assault investigations
Officer sensitivity training
Victims’ advocates in prosecutors’ offices
Enactment of rape shield laws to prevent questions or comments about
the victim’s prior sexual history

Women are convicted of far fewer crimes than men

Possible explanations
 Women are less criminally inclined than men
 Justice system is more forgiving toward women (chivalry hypothesis)
 Justice system may also be more punitive toward women
(paternalism perspective)

Unequal adjudication
 More sympathy from judges and juries
 This has lessened through the use of sentencing guidelines



Historical underrepresentation of women in law and the
judiciary
Substantial increase in female law students, attorneys, and
judges
Historical exclusion from jury service has been eliminated


Minorities comprise a disproportionate percentage of those
arrested and prosecuted
Possible explanations
 Minorities may commit more crimes
 Criminal justice policies may disproportionately affect minorities

Minorities are overrepresented in the prison population
 Underrepresentation of minorities in law practice and
the judiciary
 Numbers are increasing at a very slow rate
 Used to identify and apprehend criminal suspects
 Originated in France with the Bertillon method
 Use of science and technology has increased substantially
 Primary method is DNA testing




First employed in a murder and rape case in England
Has received tremendous publicity
Illustrates court procedures for establishing scientific validity and reliability
Accepted as a reliable indicator of criminal involvement
 Focus from DNA testing and well-publicized cases
 Significant concerns
 The guilty party is still in the community
 Due process
 Reasons for wrongful convictions






Eyewitness identification
False confessions
Jailhouse snitch testimony
Misleading forensic science
Prosecutorial misconduct
Ineffective assistance of counsel
 Prosecution of enemy combatants has presented new issues
 The Supreme Court has ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear
the cases of enemy combatants
 Military tribunals violate the Uniform Code of Military
Justice and the Geneva Convention