| Summary jury trials as alternative dispute resolution |
|
Designed as a less expensive and less time-consuming option for courts and litigants, summary jury trials continue to grow in use for cases as diverse as product defects and personal injury concerns. Usually lasting no more than one day, these miniature trials give each party a chance to give their arguments, introduce only the most persuasive evidence or indispensable witness, and allow the jury to make a non-binding decision. For as little as $2,000, both parties receive valuable insight on how the jury would rule in a traditional multiple-week trial, which costs $18,000 on average. The vast majority of these "decided" cases settle quickly.
|
|
|
Alternative Court Models
|
As prisons have become overcrowded and courtrooms overburdened, traditional civil and criminal justice approaches have often been unable to respond to changing times, emerging social problems, and increased public expectations. Instead of reacting to successive crises, some jurisdictions are experimenting with a more holistic approach in addressing the root causes of the cases they oversee. Through unique collaborations with law enforcement, public health, and private agencies, municipalities across the country have replicated and customized models of homelessness courts, domestic violence courts, and mental health courts. These different iterations seem to work.
According to a recent Government Accountability Office report, California drug court participants, by taking advantage of structured programs to help them reduce their criminal involvement and their substance abuse problems, tend to have fewer incidents of re-arrests or reconvictions, and a longer time until re-arrest or reconviction. The report suggests that the drug courts could end up saving money even if the up-front costs seem high, as low recidivism rates yield positive net societal benefits. Philadelphia's magistrates, probation officers, social workers, and public defenders agree, and since the creation of a pilot juvenile treatment court, they have observed a strong compliance rate of 80%.
Often, women embedded in the cycles of prostitution and drugs are unaware of the physical and medical dangers inherent in their lifestyle. To help them understand and modify their risky behavior, the Central District Court Probation Department in collaboration with other social service agencies in Worcester, MA, have created Developing Alternatives for Women Now. As a condition of their probation, participants attend evening classes in the courthouse after a judge places them in the eight-week program. Professionals assist the women with self-esteem, domestic abuse, relapse, and other issues, and help to arrange for detoxification and related addiction services.
To reduce the high homelessness rate in the South Bronx of New York, several social service agencies have partnered to create a comprehensive court-based homelessness prevention program. Specially trained judges and counsel will now handle housing and eviction cases through the Housing Help Program, while co-located support services will address the background reasons for homelessness. Placing these services under one roof mitigates the disconnect between important agencies charged with protecting the rights of the homeless. City officials believe that the program will go far in helping to reduce the 5000 South Bronx individuals, half of which are children, sleeping in city shelters each night.
|
|
Related IAG Award Winners
|
Read about these winners of the Innovations in American Government (IAG) Awards:
In the mid-1990s, San Francisco spent more than $4 million per year arresting women for prostitution. Most of the women quickly returned to the streets after their arrest. In response to this crisis, authorities began San Francisco's First Offender Prostitution Program in 1995. The program moved financial resources from courtroom prosecution to prevention, offering counseling and job training for prostitutes. Most notably, the program addressed the inequity of a system where the prostitutes, and not their customers, received the harsher legal penalties. The court began offering a "Johns School," for first-time offenders. The program dramatically cut into recidivism rates and has become a model for similar programs across the country.
Many states experiment with alternative courts and sentencing. But a New York State partnership has made innovative courts an institution. In 1996, the New York State Court System and the nonprofit Fund for the City of New York launched the Center for Court Innovation. The Center works to establish new court prototypes and researches what makes an effective alternative court. The Center for Court Innovation began with four court models, but the organization has since expanded to include many different prototypes of successful "problem-solving" courts. These include domestic violence courts, re-entry courts, family treatment courts, and community courts, which dole out community service as punishment.
Traditionally, most courts rely on a judge or a jury to decide a sentence. In 1995, the Vermont Department of Corrections took a different approach to sentencing. Under the Reparative Probation program, adults who plead guilty to minor, non-violent crimes are sent to community boards comprised of ordinary citizens. Motivated by the idea that offenders are less likely to commit further crimes if they make amends with their victims, the boards develop creative sentences with the goal of compensating victims. The program has helped reduce Vermont's surging inmate population and served as a model for other states.
|
|
Related Research
|
The U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs offers a number of publications on problem-solving courts.
The following research highlights recent changes in court-based approaches:
Cait Clarke, January 2001, U.S. Department of Justice.
Richard S. Gebelein, NCJ 181412, May 2000, Research in Brief, National Institute of Justice.
Jeffrey Roth, FS 000231, November 1998, Research in Progress Preview, National Institute of Justice.
Adele Harrell, FS 000219, August 1998, Research Preview, National Institute of Justice.
|
|
