By Brendan Mitchell
How can you tell if something needs serious change? Or, how can you tell if it’s time to replace something? In terms of a bike, it’s obvious where minor change is required. Upon popping a tire, you replace it. When chains break from their position, you readjust them. Simple enough. What if the handlebars are stiff, one of the axles is bent, the seat is torn up, and the frame can barely hold your weight? Then, it might be time to get a new bike. While a little more complex than your bike, the U.S. court system at all levels can be seen in a similar light.
The question surrounding our Judicial system is the same one involving an old bike: should it be used as is, readjusted, or scrapped altogether and replaced? If Kalief Browder was asked, he probably would have support serious change, and rightfully so. He was arrested leaving a party from a tip saying he robbed someone three weeks prior. Because Browder couldn’t pay $10,000 for bail, he spent 33 months in jail without a trial. One day he was released from jail with no evident reason (Flatow n. pag.). Such inefficient and unjust scenarios promote court reform, yet extensive change has yet to be seen. Due to the lack of civil and criminal defense lawyers, the increase in caseload volume for lawyers, and an outdated system which often favors the rich and promotes unfair technicalities, it is time for drastic change in the civil and criminal court systems.
Take the word of Douglas Dunn, a sign-language interpreter in courts for over 25 years. From his constant contact with cases as a sign-language interpreter, Dunn realized the dissatisfaction many have with the court system. As Dunn explains the sixth amendment to the Constitution, “It ALSO ensures the right to a “speedy” trial… Persons accused of crimes must often waive their right to a “speedy” trial to give their legal counsel adequate time – often over months and years – to prepare a defense and hold a trial” (Dunn n.pag.). Such scenarios often sap valuable time from the lives of those in custody. Browder, for example, waited for 33 valuable months to get out of custody (Flatow).
Another example of courts’ untimeliness is Dale Akiki of San Diego County, who was in custody for two years for being accused of a terrible crime only to be declared innocent and released. How do such scenarios originate? Dunn argues we shouldn’t be blaming lawyers or judges, but rather the poor allocation of such professionals. Over his years of experience, Dunn recalled observing many public defense lawyers who were simply unprepared for a case despite great deals of effort. Not the cause of incompetent defense lawyers, the real problem is the small number of criminal defense lawyers (Dunn). Laws which regulate the distribution of and caseload of lawyers and judges would provide a more consistently quick system for everyone involved.
Even if lawyers are poorly spread out, they should still be able to adapt and pick up some extra cases to compensate, right? Unfortunately, this isn’t true because of another problem: caseload volume. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there was a 5% increase in total cases from 2001 to 2003. From 2005 to 2006, civil and criminal caseloads both rose by 3.5%. Caseloads have been increasing since, and have only been remedied by an unsubstantial increase in lawyers. Also, caseloads per lawyer increase about 1% per year, but the yearly growth of lawyers is only .5% (Bureau n. pag.). This makes it so even well-intending, hard-working lawyers can and do struggle to provide justice for their many clients.
Another expert on the matter, David Cleveland (assistant Professor at Valparaiso School of Law), echoed this complaint. He interestingly compared the United States’ situation to that of early common law England. England’s problems derived from an inability to process information and get decisions published quickly due to poor technology. Case volume was so high that many decisions went unpublished. Because cases went unpublished, they were quickly decided and the specificity of law increased. This positive change was brought because when cases are resolved speedily, the whole system flows efficiently and there are more clear presidents to observe for each case. The U.S. is currently in a state where cases take such a long time to process because of case overload, coupled with the formalities of the process (Cleveland 8). If the court process is modified to cut out formalities and make important processes more swift, the system can run quicker. As what occurred for the British, courts will have faster cases which produce more accurate results.
In opposition to reformation, Matthew Stephenson (a Harvard Law Professor) explained the drawbacks of reforming a court system. Stephenson mentioned how reformation of a court system often leads to more resources allocated to it. This is reasonable, as proper reform requires the collaboration of today’s intelligent legal minds and a monetary investment. While it is a considerable price to pay, the costs of resources and money are worth paying to refine a system which often misplaces justice. Additionally, Stephenson mentioned the excellent point that judicial reform is worthless in the face of uncooperative selfish parties (judges, lawyers, those bringing charges, and those accused). In Stephenson’s words, “In order for the judiciary to perform the functions generally assigned to it by law and development theorists, the relevant parties must have appropriate incentives” (Stephenson 6). This makes sense, but as mentioned by Douglas Dunn – a third party who has observed courts for many years –lawyers tend to be intelligent well-meaning individuals who simply don’t have the time or resources to carry out their job (Dunn).
As for evidently crooked lawyers, more regulations can be produced so they are caught and heavily punished for their dishonesty. Well-crafted reform would suppress the influence of those who aim to cheat the system, rather than benefit them. By bringing about reform, new laws on the Federal, state, and local levels can be introduced which punish those who would lie, are pampered in court because of their riches, or are favored because of a cheap technicality. As an example of how the court system has important kinks to work out, take the case of Ezekiel Gilbert. He paid Lenora Frago $150, and he expected for it to be payment for her to have sex with him. When she declined, Gilbert proceeded to shoot her in the neck. Frago died weeks later from injuries, and Gilbert was taken to court. Insanely enough, Gilbert was acquitted under a Texas law that allowed him to use deadly force when reclaiming stolen property at night. Both the unreasonable law, and a system which encourages common sense to die for silly technicalities, made it possible for such a tragedy to occur with no repercussions. (Flatow).
Such cases are commonplace, and only a Google search is needed to discover the mass of unreasonable cases which could be remedied by reform in our court system. 100% of cases will never be concluded justly, and resources will be needed to bring about positive change in our Judicial branch. However, such costs are minuscule to provide swift justice to the people of America. If no change is brought, a broken system will thrive which continues to favor unjust outcomes, run lawyers into the dirt with hefty caseloads, and multiply its own problems with inefficient laws. By spreading the word to other well-intending Americans and writing respectful letters to Congressmen and women promoting reasonable court reform, positive change will be seen with time.
Works Cited
Just a Random blog 