NCJ Number
85893
Journal
Judicature Volume: 66 Issue: 3 and 4 Dated: (September/October 1982) Pages: 136-146
Date Published
1982
Length
11 pages
Annotation
This article suggests how courts and legislators should view judicial impact statements so as to make the best possible use of them.
Abstract
Recent evaluations of proposals for impact statements, as well as attempts to develop mechanisms for forecasting the impact on courts that new legislation may bring, have floundered for two reasons. First, analysts lack a sophisticated understanding or suitable theory upon which to base estimates of case flows routinely, reliably, and precisely. Second, the data required for accurate impact predictions are difficult to gather and expensive to obtain. Two examples of judicial impact analysis which have been regarded as relatively precise reinforce the conclusion that theoretical and empirical knowledge are lacking in this area. Nevertheless, the idea of judicial impact statements has attracted judges, court administrators, researchers, and legislators. Advocates believe that impact statements can help ameliorate the ill effects of new legislation. Routine prediction of the number of new cases which would result from legislative reform would eventually cause a reduction in the probability of passage of any new legislation. The idea of cost should therefore be construed broadly rather than narrowly. Legislators should know not only the number of new cases that a new law would bring but also the social cost of doing nothing. It should not be presumed that all categories of cases presently on the dockets are more meritorious than any new category of cases would be. A total of 38 footnotes are provided.