NCJ Number
58442
Date Published
1978
Length
9 pages
Annotation
TWO BASIC REASONS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM DELAYS, AS WELL AS CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE REMEDIES, ARE DISCUSSED. THE IMPACT ON TRIAL LENGTH OF DEFENDANTS' RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS EMPHASIZED.
Abstract
THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF DELAY IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE, ONE CONCERNS THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AS A WHOLE. THE SYSTEM IS FACED WITH NUMEROUS PROBLEMS INCLUDING SHORTAGES OF QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS, INSUFFICIENT PHYSICAL FACILITIES AND TECHNOLOGICAL EQUIPMENT, LACK OF EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES, AND OUT-OF-DATE OR TOO TECHNICAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE REGULATIONS. DELAY ALSO ARISES FROM ATTEMPTS TO PROLONG INDIVIDUAL CASES. THE REASONS FOR SUCH DELAYS VARY FROM CASE TO CASE, BUT ALL INVOLVED PARTIES (PROSECUTORS, POLICE, DEFENSE COUNSEL, AND THE COURTS) MAY FIND REASONS FOR DELAYING. HOWEVER, THIS DELAY TACTIC RUNS AGAINST SOCIETY'S INTEREST IN THE SPEEDY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. THUS SOCIETY DEVELOPS CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE REMEDIES DESIGNED TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN THESE INTERESTS. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS DECLARING THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO A SPEEDY TRIAL ARE ILLUSORY UNLESS EFFECTIVE REMEDIES TO DELAYS ARE PROVIDED. WHILE JAPANESE LAW PROVIDES NO SPECIFIC REMEDIES FOR DEFENDANTS DENIED A SPEEDY TRIAL, THE SUPREME COURT IN THE 1972 TAKADA CASE DID ALLOW THAT CERTAIN TYPES OF DELAYS WERE INTOLERABLE AND COULD RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF CHARGES. A 1972 DECISION BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT MODIFIED A COURT DECISION WHICH HELD THAT RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL WAS FUNDAMENTAL. A FULL EXAMINATION OF THE REASONS FOR TRIAL DELAY WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE TO SEE IF DEFENDANTS' RIGHTS HAD BEEN VIOLATED. THE ROLE OF LEGISLATION IN ENSURING THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL CAN ONLY PROVE EFFECTIVE IF ACCOMPANIED BY MEASURES TO RESOLVE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS. ALTHOUGH THE RIGHT OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPETENT COUNSEL IS IMPORTANT, COUNSEL MUST ACT TO ACHIEVE A SPEEDY AS WELL AS FAIR TRIAL. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (KCP)