NCJ Number
79080
Journal
Justice System Journal Volume: 6 Issue: 1 Dated: special issue (Spring 1981) Pages: 13-27
Date Published
1981
Length
15 pages
Annotation
The role of the limited-jurisdiction courts (lower courts) is examined.
Abstract
Limited-jurisdiction courts are applauded for being flexible and informal, while they are chided for not fulfilling the forms and techniques of due process. They are praised for being responsive to local community situations and needs and criticized for their variability. Lower courts are second class citizens to the bar and judiciary but constitute the majority of America's trial courts and hear 90 percent of the Nation's criminal cases. Recent suggestions for reform reflect two differing perspectives of the lower courts. On the one hand, reforms are proposed that would rationalize the justice system by making it efficient and consistent with ideals of adversarial adjudication and due process. On the other hand, suggestions for reform spring from a desire to make these courts less oppressive, less bureaucratic, more accessible, and more effective mechanisms for resolving disputes and social grievances. Despite repeated reform efforts, the lower court problem seems intractable. The resistance to corrective change may be the result of superficial reforms or of the multiplicity of conflicting social, legal, and organizational demands to which the courts respond. It may be that the ambiguity of the lower court role and processes is an inevitable consequence of its effort to moderate the tensions between substantive and procedural justice. While the lower courts do not conform to the dominant model of the rule of law -- adversarial due process wih full protection of the rights of the disputants -- their informality, flexibility, closeness to the parties, and diversity can provide responsive justice for the kinds of cases these courts are asked to handle. Seven footnotes and 76 references are listed.