The United States criminal justice system has done many great things, while also making many basic mistakes. America is the highest incarcerating country in the world. While this  hopefully means that a lot of the bad guys are being put away, there is always the possibility of those who are innocent being locked up. The “right to a fair and speedy trial” applies for all of these individuals, yet there is nothing “speedy” about our criminal justice system. The article I read, “Dysfunctional Justice: What’s Wrong with the U.S. Legal System“, by Wharton University, does a great job of explaining why this is a major problem in our country by outlining some key problems with the system and our country in general. Major issues that the authors discussed, that I agreed with, were courtroom issues, the systems process, and the rules our country has under different political control.

Courtroom Issues

There are rules for almost everything a person can do in this country. The people who control and regulate these rules can be not as reliable as they seem. In the article by Wharton University, an author by the name of Bruce Gibney, a used to be litigator, says that congress “doesn’t understand” laws well enough and that they often try to find what the “right thing” is without knowing exactly what they’re looking for. This is something that I wanted to read about more and found judges look at people highly if they’re more successful and give judgements that are not completely fair. Additionally, judge’s caseloads are also being overly flooded. Judges in California are facing twice the average number of cases that a judge should have. These are major issues, and seem to be the most common causes for the slowing of the system. Reading more about the courts being slow, I’ve discovered that Judges are overwhelmed with how many cases are piled onto them each day. Wharton University’s article, as well as many others, state that the caseload for judges specifically are too high. They also are not doing, what I consider to be, the “right thing” by letting those who are more successful off the hook. Trials on people like corrupt businessmen need to happen, but with a judge who will give a fair judgement, otherwise they are wasting time on a predetermined verdict just so that they can try and get another case off of their table. Combine this with the ever-changing complicated legal process and you have a snail like pace.

This photoshop created picture is part of a running joke describing the speed of the American court system.

A Broken Conveyor Belt

Looking for the answer to a never ending question isn’t the only problem with the system slowing down though. The different legal personnel don’t understand much about their fellow workers in different divisions. In the article, Gibney says that law firm partners usually say that law schools “didn’t teach our associates how to do anything”. The systems process, that begins at the person being arrested and ends at them being released, is way complex and involves countless people. If a person directly involved in this system doesn’t understand what they’re doing, its natural flow could be lost. Gibney then goes on explaining that the law firm partners also do not understand their clients either. Both of these are huge problems. If the workers of this system aren’t on the same page, they can not effectively do their job as group. On the same note, if the lawyer doesn’t care about the client, then they may wonder why they should care to give them all the help that they can. As bad as this seems, these problems don’t start at the law firm workers. They’re simply products of where and how the problems begin, and they really begin during the biggest political event our country has every four years.

Democratic Control

Elections play a large role in how the criminal justice system deals with crime. Certain presidents have been much more adamant on crime control than others have been, such as Ronald Reagan and his “Get Tough” movement. Our leaders and their parties, control how tough the system gets on crime. Gibney says that bureaucracies “write the rules and report to the executive”, essentially meaning that the rules are written to just appease the higher ups. In these cases it would be to fit what the President wants. These rules then hurt those that work at a lower level in the system, as they have to learn the new rules, slowing them down. This problem is one that repeats itself every four years. Personally, I think that the system should not change major rules without some form of a warning to all of those involved in the system. While reading into this problem, I found that there are solutions to this problem, such as the government funding the system while it goes through a complete rework. This would be very beneficial to our country in general. A better understanding of the rules may lower the incarceration rate which would reduce the caseloads that judges have. This could give breathing room to those involved in the system, and get people that are wrongfully incarcerated their right to a speedy trial.

Overall, the system has slowed down exponentially since the 1980s when a major crackdown on crime occurred. Those incarcerated, for both the right and wrong reasons, have to wait way longer than they should for a right they’re guaranteed as an American. Wharton University’s article shows these problems from legal, monetary, and moral viewpoints, which are important and realistic ways to view the problems. Those who are trying to keep the system running consistently quick, have to potentially cut corners because of the overwhelming caseloads. These people are also slowed down by trying to learn the rules that change frequently. Unless there is a major reform of the criminal justice system in the ways Wharton University’s authors pointed out, this slow system could be an unfortunately never ending problem.

COVID-19 has rocked the entirety of the world by changing the way we go about our daily tasks. While an important activity, jury duty is not a daily action. However, Jury Duty was postponed just like everything else. In recent times, I have discovered that Jury Duty has changed drastically since COVID hit the United States. The article “Jury Trials In The Time Of Covid” by Catherine Foti includes what multiple different states had and have done from the beginning of the pandemic, to current times. New rules have been set in place, and places have begun to reopen with restricted courtroom activities.

Arrival of COVID

When COVID hit in March and the lockdowns began, everything stopped. Many businesses shut down altogether, but Courtrooms in certain places did not. In Foti’s article, the author describes that they had received a Jury notice when an “upturn in the curve” of Covid cases occurred. Another article called “COVID-19: Resuming Jury Trials in Massachusetts” by Felicia Ellsworth and Andrew Dulberg details how the courts shut down entirely, postponing all trials until the case numbers came down.The author of this article says that Massachusetts reduced the spread of COVID through actions of shutting down their courts, and enforcing strict social distancing rules. This is absolutely important to stop the spread. However, being the criminal justice major that I am, I know the process for an incarcerated person to get to trial. It could take months or years, and for them to be sent the whole way back to the start for an undefined amount of time seems to be ridiculous. Out of the two states, I believe Massachusetts handled it the best way.

Trials Now

Trials being held currently are very sporadic. Different courtrooms have resumed in person trials while others have not. In Texas courts have embraced fully virtual trials. In August, a court from Texas used Zoom to conduct a trial. Those without computer access were given electronic devices to attend court. In Foti’s article, the envelopes sent to selected jurors have special steps to ensure others don’t get COVID. They also include questionnaires that have to be sent back to the court. These questions are mainly symptom and exposure checking questions.

–

The article by Becker and Green describes a New Jersey court testing a “hybrid” jury selection process. This process includes a pre-screening of potential jurors and looking at underlying health conditions and age. If requirements are met they’re excused from duty. The way New Jersey is handling this is perfect. This excuse from duty could protect those vulnerable to the disease, saving them from being exposed.

What’s Ahead

As of now, the courts are running but very limitedly. The Blair County Courts website show that an extension to a judicial emergency has been put into place until December 31st of this year. This involves using Zoom, telephone, and other devices to hold court hearings. Other states have reopened their courts since the beginning of COVID, but with strict rules set in place. Court hearings that will need to take place in the courtroom will have a staggered amount of people allowed into the room. Again, this is a good idea to stop the spread of this horrible disease.

To conclude, COVID has brought hardships onto everyone, especially people involved in the court system. Jurors, judges, and even the convicted have all had something delayed or entirely cancelled on them. For even the worst of the convicted, a right to a fair and speed trial still applies, and the fact that they haven’t gotten that because of COVID is very unfortunate. With COVID cases seemingly spiking (at least in PA), only time will tell what becomes of many businesses and court cases alike.