1 / 15

Surveys of Public Confidence and the Response by the Courts in the USA

Surveys of Public Confidence and the Response by the Courts in the USA. David B. Rottman National Center for State Courts Williamsburg, VA, USA Prepared for the Conference on Confidence in the Courts Canberra, Australia.

lena
Download Presentation

Surveys of Public Confidence and the Response by the Courts in the USA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Surveys of Public Confidence and the Response by the Courts in the USA David B. Rottman National Center for State Courts Williamsburg, VA, USA Prepared for the Conference on Confidence in the Courts Canberra, Australia

  2. “The Court’s authority - possessed of neither the purse nor the sword - ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction.” -Justice Felix Frankfurter Baker v Carr

  3. Confidence in the Courts and Other Public Institutions: 1977 - 1998

  4. What Americans Like about their Courts • Judges are well qualified • Judges are honest • Courts defend people’s rights • Courts treat people with dignity and respect

  5. What Americans Dislike about their Courts • Courts are: • Slow • Difficult to Access • Prevent meaningful participation by litigants • Biased against minorities, people on low income, and non-English speakers • Judges are influenced by political considerations

  6. California’s Judicial Branch: Summary of Strategic/Operational Planning Timeline and Processes STAGES/TASKS in Plan Development May June July - October January through November - December TARGET Planning Cycle: Annual Judicial Council Sponsored Branchwide Planning Meeting: • The council is joined by branch stakeholders for 2-days of strategic discussion and deliberation; draft 1 branch plan reviewed/debated and revised. Draft 2 plan produced. • The Public provides input via periodic Judicial Council sponsored surveys and public opinion initiatives (in 2005 and 2006, the council’s Public Trust and Confidence assessments obtained input about the California courts from over 3,000 Californians). • AOC Staff synthesizes stakeholder input to produce draft 1 branch plan. • Strategic Plan: Review/revise every six years (2006; 2012;2018, etc.) • Stakeholder Input Solicited and Analyzed: • Trial Courts submit updated plans, progress reports & strategic priorities on internal web site • Judicial Council advisory committees & task forces submit recommended strategic priorities • AOC ExecutiveTeam submits recommended strategic priorities • Leadership of the State Bar • Continuing Plan Review: • Subsequent Multiple Plan Iterations Circulated to Stakeholders for Comment via Internet Technology; plan is revised based on comments received. • Plan iterations reviewed by Judicial Council and its Internal Oversight committee. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES • Final Review and Adoption: • AOC Executive Team reviews draft plan; • Judicial Council Internal Oversight committee reviews draft plan; • AOC staff prepares final draft plan to be considered for adoption by the Judicial Council. • Plan presented at final Judicial Council business meeting of the calendar year. Adoption of Strategic or Operational Plan • Operational Plan: Review/revise every three years (2007; 2010;2013, etc.; evaluate progress annually in off years) Stakeholder Participants in Strategic/Operational Plan Development: • Trial Courts • Judicial Council Members • Advisory Committees • Task Forces • AOC Executive Team • State Bar • • Members of the Public • Other Justice System Stakeholders (as directed)

  7. Phase II of California Research • 15 court user groups • 8 with demographic cross sections • 7 with minorities • 5 judicial officer groups • 2 court administrator groups

  8. The Elements of Procedural Fairness “The procedural justice argument is that, on the general level, the key concerns that people have about the police and the courts center around whether these authorities treat people fairly, recognize citizen rights, treat people with dignity, and care about people’s concerns.” -T. R. Tyler “Trust and Democratic Governance.”

  9. The Elements of Procedural Fairness Four elements of procedural justice are key: • Interpersonal respect: Treated with dignity and one’s rights protected. • Neutrality: Impartial decision makers who base decisions on facts. • Participation: The opportunity to express one’s views to decision makers, directly or indirectly. • Trustworthiness: Decision makers who are benevolent: motivated to treat you fairly, sincerely concerned with your needs, and consider your side of the story.

  10. What Predicts Levels of Confidence

  11. Lawyers vs. the Public: Predictors of Confidence

  12. Minneapolis Trial Court: Measuring Fairness • The judicial officer gave reasons for his or her decision. • The judicial officer made sure I understood the decision. • The judicial officer seemed to be a caring person. • The judicial officer treated me with respect. • The judicial officer listened carefully to what I (or my lawyer) had to say. • I understand what is required of me in order to comply with the judicial officer’s decision.

More Related