The increased caseload of the criminal courts in the United States is a source of concern for many legislators and policy-makers. The problem is that these institutions have become too overburdened and it may be difficult for them to cope with their duties effectively. This paper is aimed at discussing the trends in the caseload of the American criminal courts. Secondly, it is important to discuss how the problem can be effectively addressed. Overall, one can argue that the underlying cause of this problem is the criminalization of minor misdemeanors that do not always have to be examined by criminal courts. Policy-makers should take this factor into account.
At first, it is important to point out that the crime rate in the United States has risen dramatically within the last five decades. According to the statistic data provided by researchers, the number of offenses per 1 offenses population has grown by more than 200 percent since 1960 (Siegel, 2009, p. 60). Special attention should be paid to property theft (Siegel, 2009, p. 60). Thus, the growing caseload can be partly attributed to social and economic factors. It should be noted that crime rates declined slightly within the last decade but they still remain relatively high. Thus, it is possible to assume that the caseload of the criminal courts has also increased. The statistical data shows that criminal courts can be overwhelmed with the number of cases that they have to examine. For instance, in 2005, American criminal courts had to try more than 21.4 million cases that could be classified as crimes (Travis, 2011, p. 205). Certainly, not all of them were felonies, but the sheer number is staggering. Again, one has to mention that since the time the case load began to diminish at a very slow rate, but at the given moment, the burden is too heavy for the criminal courts (Travis, 2011, p. 205). As a result, these institutions may not be able to do their duties effectively. Their caseload should be reduced at least by 20 percent. Criminal courts should restore the rights of victims and prosecute offenders. Unfortunately, due to the current overload, they cannot always cope with their primary tasks.
Thus, one has to find ways of resolving this problem. In particular, it is vital to design strategies for reducing the caseload in the criminal courts. One of the key issues identified by researchers is that these criminal cases differ immensely from one another. In particular, only 20 percent of them are felonies like arson, robbery, murder, or burglary (Travis, 2011, p. 205). This means that courts have to decide whether these cases are equally relevant to their jurisdiction. The researchers believe that the government should decriminalize some misdemeanors that have to be tried by criminal courts, for instance, one can mention panhandling, turnstile jumping, or public drinking (Ackerman, 2010, p. 35). They can hardly be qualified as indictable offenses that should be the top priority of criminal courts. It should be noted that the zero-tolerance toward such misdemeanors led to the increased workload in some of the states of the country, such as New York (Ackerman, 2010, p. 35). This issue should be taken into consideration by the legislators and policy-makers who attempt to reduce the number of such misdemeanors. Certainly, the government can still impose fines for this misconduct, but it should not be the priority of criminal courts. Thus, decriminalization may be one of the strategies that may be adopted. Overall, this task can be properly done provided that legislators develop a set of regulations explaining how these misdemeanors can be addressed without the participation of criminal courts. This is one of their most important tasks.
Another approach discussed by scholars is the adoption of specialized courts that are supposed to deal with specific types of misconduct. For instance, scholars speak about the creation of domestic violence or drug courts that should work separately from criminal courts (Neurbauer & Fradella, 2010, p. 106). There are several rationales for this decision. First of all, many people who are now tried by criminal courts do not fall into the category of criminals. For instance, a person, who is addicted to drugs, is more likely to be a victim, rather than an offender (Neurbauer & Fradella, 2010, p. 106). Provided that he/she has not committed any indictable offense such as robbery, there is no reason for a criminal court to be involved (Neurbauer & Fradella, 2010, p. 106). In turn, drug courts place more emphasis on the treatment of such an individual, instead of punishment. This approach can reduce the number of cases that are investigated by criminal courts. Certainly, this initiative may result in extra expenses, but it will ensure that criminal courts can focus on the prosecution of criminals and restoration of victims’ rights. These are the main advantages of this approach.
Another option that may be considered is plea bargaining. This practice has already been adopted by law-enforcement agencies. This means that criminal prosecutors should impose a less severe sentence on a person who accepts his/her responsibility for a crime (Neurbauer & Fradella, 2010, p. 328). This policy can reduce the amount of time that criminal courts have to spend on a case. This negotiation can benefit both law-enforcement officers and the defendants. Such an approach can be criticized because plea bargaining can lead to the extreme leniency of prosecutors (Neurbauer & Fradella, 2010, p. 328). However, the efficiency or inefficiency of this practice depends greatly on the ethical principles of prosecutors. If they are firmly convinced that a certain crime does not merit leniency, they can still impose a severe sentence of the person who has been indicted. Despite these limitations, this approach can greatly decrease the caseload of criminal courts in the United States. So, criminal courts can consider plea bargaining as one of the options available to them.
Overall, these examples indicate that the caseload of the criminal courts can be effectively decreased at least to some extent. Legislators have to accept the premise that some misdemeanors should not be the concern of these courts because in many cases, the defendants can hardly be viewed as editors. Secondly, criminal courts should decrease the amount of time that they spend on some of the cases. Under some circumstance, plea bargaining can be an effective solution. By adopting these policies, these institutions can become more efficient. It has to be admitted that these strategies can require some changes in the judicial system, but they can be quite beneficial.
Reference List
Ackerman, G. (2010). Law and Courts: Current Perspective from InfoTrac. New York: Law and Courts: Cengage Learning.
Neurbauer, D. & Fradella, H. (2010). America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. New York.
Siegel, L. (2009). Introduction to Criminal Justice. New York: Cengage Learning.
Travis, L. (2011). Introduction to Criminal Justice. New York: Elsevier.