Compare and contrast the law on the books and the law in action approaches to court delay. Which approach do you think is the most effective at addressing the problem of delay in courts? Why?

Question

Fill in the blank(s) with the appropriate word(s).

Answer 1

The law on the books approach to court delay focuses on resources and procedures. A common response is to supplement resources although budget realities often prevent doing so today. Emphasis is also placed on streamlining procedures. Research has, however, indicated that the level of court resources was not associated with court delay (Church et al., 1978). Such findings explain why the law on the books approach is often ineffective in speeding up case dispositions and reducing excessive caseloads. Speedy-trial laws are a case in point. Speedy trial laws are federal or state statutes that specify time limits for bringing a case to trial after arrest. They do not provide for any additional resources to aid the courts in complying. Potential difficulties arise because not all cases fit easily into the mandated time frames. Various studies find that such laws have had limited impact on court delay (Church et al., 1978; Hamburg, 2015; Mahoney et al., 1988; Nimmer, 1978). This is primarily because most state laws fail to provide the court with adequate and effective enforcement mechanisms. The federal speedy-trial law has proven effective. Researchers stress that law in action approaches to reducing court delay are ultimately more effective. Delay is related to the number of cases and the choices made by court actors in processing cases. Law in action approaches to court delay seek to alter practitioners’ attitudes regarding proper case disposition times. Improving case scheduling and coordination among courtroom work group members are two such approaches. The variability in courtroom workgroups has major consequences for how long it takes courts to dispose of cases. Research has found that some courts were characterized as hierarchical because there was a clear chain of command among judges, administrative staff, and courtroom staff. Courts with a hierarchical culture processed felony cases significantly faster than other courts (Ostrom et al., 2007).