Path Through Courts
There are two distinct types of trials heard in courts, criminal law where the state persecutes an individual for committing a crime, and civil law which is a trial between two private parties. The large majority of over 90% of all cases in America which numbers in millions are heard by state courts that are the backbone of the nation’s judicial system. Criminal activity ranging from robbery to murder is heard by state courts along with civil matters such as injury, malpractice, or divorce.
Federal courts examine cases of interstate matters, national security, and matters of federal importance, such as the recent case against a Trump associate, Roger Stone which was heard in a U.S. District of Columbia court. Some matters of federal law or Constitutional importance can be examined in federal court even if seemingly minor ( “Dual court system,” n.d.).
The path through the federal system is much simpler. The case is examined in one of 94 district courts where a federal judge is present, with the U.S. attorneys being the primary prosecutors. Upon a decision, the case can be appealed, at which point it is transferred to the United State court of appeals. There are twelve federal circuit courts were appeals, with circuit court having multiple judges. Appeals are heard by a panel of three judges which makes the decision that cannot be overruled by any future panel (United States Department of Justice, n.d.).
At the state level, the case is heard at a state located in local jurisdictions and can have both criminal and civil hearings. Usually, there are a high variety of courts for specific legal matters, such as the family court, juvenile court, and others. Once decisions are made, a case is then appealed to the intermediate appellate court which is required to hear all cases. After this point, a decision can be appealed to the State Supreme Court if it is a relevant legal matter.
Some states lack an appellate court, and all appealed cases go to the State Supreme Court on a mandatory basis. However, commonly cases are handpicked beforehand, and it does not hold a trial or fact-finding, but rather a panel of judges reviews the matters of the case, making the final decision which is final and must be upheld in the state.
After the State Supreme Court or the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, there is the final avenue of appeal, to the United States Supreme Court. The issue must commonly be of national importance and concerning federal law or the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for review by the Supreme Court judges. Parties must file a writ of certiorari, which is an official request to hear the appeal in the Supreme Court. Less than 1% of appeals are heard, and if the writ is not granted the last lower court opinion stands. However, if heard, the U.S. Supreme Court decision overrules any previous decisions and the judgment stands across all national and state-level laws (United States Department of Justice, n.d.).
Specialized Courts
Specialized courts are limited-jurisdiction courts that focus on specific crime problems such as drugs or domestic violence, also known as problem-solving courts. These are meant to address specific issues within the community and attempt to resolve solutions without burdening the criminal justice and penitentiary system.
These specialized courts utilize a non-adversarial approach, utilizing key professionals and a specific knowledge set which is meant to aid individuals as much as possible in rehabilitation, and often principles of restorative justice are used that emphasize restoration and making amends rather than severe punishment for crimes. Therefore, in drug courts, for example, substance abuse treatment is closely involved and allows for early identification and treatment of non-violent or non-habitual offenders. There is an ongoing interaction with the participants helping them to change their lives (Nolan, 2017).
Overall, there is evidence that drug courts are effective in preventing recidivism and drug relapses, both significant issues in traditional prison systems. Similarly, these programs have received acceptance from both offenders and the general public, with a significant number of participants continuing treatments in the 2-year follow-up period and generally lower recidivism for program completion after 5 years (DeVall, Gregory, & Harman, 2016). An expansive study across 8 states and 23 specialized courts found that drug courts produced statistically significant reductions in drug use and criminal behavior, with offenders more likely to achieve education or employment (Rossman, Roman, Zweig, Rempel & Lindquist, 2011).
While cost is a concern for running specialized courts, there is evidence suggesting that they are a cost-effective alternative to traditional courts. For example, an evaluation of local Drug Court in Portland, Oregon found an average taxpayer savings of $5,000 per offender with $1.5 million per year. The biggest concern is short-term costs which are overwhelming in terms of how many offenders the cost sees (the specialized approach is more costly per offender than regular courts).
However, in the long-term, the soft-dollar crime-reduction benefits are significant as well. Opportunities for rehabilitation and lower recidivism rates not only reduce expenses from crime but decreases the financial and administrative burden on the state judicial and penal system. Considering the average costs of incarceration per inmate are $34,000 annually, the saved money to taxpayers can be tremendous due to the benefits of specialized courts (Griller, 2011). Typically, problem-solving courts are one of the first to lose funding during budget pressures since they go beyond constitutionally required functions of the courts. However, they remain crucial to both long-term cost-saving and community well-being.
References
DeVall, K. E., Gregory, P. D., & Hartmann, D. J. (2016). Extending recidivism monitoring for drug courts. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61(1), 80–99. Web.
Dual court system. (n.d.). Web.
Griller, G. M. (2011). The quiet battle for problem-solving courts. Web.
Nolan, J. (2017). Drug courts in theory and in practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Rossman, S. B., et al. (2011). The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: The impact of drug courts, volume 4. Web.
United States Department of Justice. (n.d.). Introduction to the federal court system. Web.