Delay in Resolving Criminal Cases and Its Impact on Criminal Justice System’s Function

Action Research II
Student Name Keiser University
Course Number and Name Dr. Professor’s Name Date
Chapter 1. Introduction
Introduction and Background of the Problem
The criminal justice is plagued with an array of issues that prevents it from delivering the very basic foundation of justice it is supposed to deliver. Improving the socio-economic conditions of the marginalized groups, such as communities of color, will help in reducing the propensity and vulnerability to crime (Kovera, 2019). Other interventions such as reformation in policing, including training on implicit biases will be an important step towards reducing police brutality, and a swift, positive outcome regarding courtroom proceedings (Kovera, 2019). Besides, adequate training for law enforcement officers on proper investigation procedure will be critical in improving court procedures (Kovera, 2019). This will avoid the need to order another investigation process from the law enforcement department as a result of an inadequate investigation that would subsequently delay court proceedings from moving forward. Therefore, interventions to assure that the court proceedings run smoothly and swiftly, such as reforming the courtroom proceedings are needed. It also requires that the rules and procedures that are implemented in handling cases are properly understood with the objective of fast resolution in court cases. This study seeks to establish the impact of delays in resolving criminal cases on the overall function of the criminal justice system
Statement of the Problem
Delays in courtroom proceedings are a serious matter often resulting in the preservation of evidence being negatively impacted and can subsequently lead to negative outcome of criminal cases. Although there are several reasons for delays in court proceedings, lack of empathy and non-concerning attitudes of some lawyers aggravates this situation. In some cases, some attorneys’ lack of knowledge and common sense required to truly argue a case and defend the rights and freedom of citizens is at stake. This mindset or philosophy can also contribute to delays in court cases, which is an injurious factor for parties involved.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to utilize the quantitative research approach to determine how delays in criminal case resolution impacts the criminal justice system. The focus on the interventions is to improve the services of the criminal justice system court process, promote the earliest opportunity for court cases to be resolved and to conclude the sentencing as soon as possible to the offenders. In additional, the system that is implemented will be receptive to the stakeholders and users with the aim of obtaining a successful outcome. In restoring confidence from the members of the community, it will require that those changes be observable to the public that validate the system is working. With the normalization of the criminal justice system from the Covid pandemic, the goal is to contruct a method that is feasible for the future.
Research Question(s)
1 What are the impacts of delays in resolving criminal cases on the overall functioning of the criminal justice system?
2 How can federal governments support the criminal justice system to become more resilient in times of shocks to prevent delays in resolving court proceedings?
3 To what extent are the failures to resolve certain criminal cases a reflection of a failure of the entire justice system as a whole?
4 What is the connection between expediting pending criminal cases and a reflection of the rule of law and the administration?
5 How does the perception of the outcomes of criminal cases among the accused and the plaintiffs change if the cases are heard and determined quickly?
Definition of Terms
Pro bono – also pro bono publico. Latin term for “for the public good”. Often used in legal practice to mean “offering free legal services”
Plaintiff – a person presenting a case and accusing another in a court of law
Conclusion
Delay in the criminal justice system has often been perceived as a serious challenge that impairs the rights of individual offenders and the victims to swift disposition of criminal cases that they are involved in. The present study examines the impacts of delayed resolution of criminal cases on the criminal justice system and sets out research questions that will serve as a guide to answering critical issues that have been raised among the accused and the victims whose cases have been delayed. The impacts of delays in resolving criminal cases are significant for the development of economies. Nevertheless, federal governments can support the criminal justice system to become resilient in times of natural or technological shocks to prevent delays and backlog of cases. In some cases, failures to resolve some criminal cases reflect failures of the entire justice system as whole, which are partly caused by implicit biases. Overall, there are substantial relationship between expediting pending criminal cases and the effectiveness of the administration and the rule of law. Finally, swift determination of court cases has an impact on the perception of the outcomes on both the accused and the plaintiffs. This perception should be strengthened if an administration aims to have a robust criminal justice system.
Chapter 2. Literature Review
Overview
Academic and legal literature on the impact of delayed court proceedings on the criminal justice system has particularly examined the issue of satisfaction among the accused and the plaintiff about the ultimate decisions that courts make. Other research studies have also examined interventions that can be made to resolve the challenges of increased backlog of cases in times of shocks, which may be natural or man-made. For instance, countries such as Canada have applied previous court rulings to enhance their criminal justice systems by making changes to how some cases may be handled. The United States has also applied previous experiences from the Hurricane Katrina to ensure resilience in the criminal justice system during and after the pandemic. Nevertheless, these systems are not devoid of failures are improvements are needed to assure all persons involved in the criminal cases their rights to fair and swift trials. This section reviews recent publications on the impact of delays in criminal cases to inform on the subject and identify some of the gaps in the literature that can be filled for further research and recommendations.
Impacts of Delays in Criminal Cases
In many developing countries, long delays in hearing and resolving court cases is a common problem with significant implications on the criminal justice system. In developed countries, such delays may be caused by administrative factors or natural events such as the COVID-19 pandemic that forced courts to close down in many parts of the world. Paciocco (2020) has reviewed how the pandemic resulted in trial delays and the impacts such delays had on the victims and accused. In Canada, court closures led to extensive delays and a direct implication for the section 11(b) Charter right of persons to be tried within reasonable duration. For systemwide events leading to delays in court processes, Paciocco (2020) recommends solutions to relieve the accused persons of the costs of COVID delays such as a reduction of sentencing through the Charter or by the sentencing process as directed in the Criminal Code. However, even before the pandemic, Canadian courts have always grappled with challenges with delays and backlogs for decades. Since 1990s, there have been several decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada to address delays in the criminal justice system. One notable example is the decision in R v Jordan to have Barrett Jordan enjoy the right “to be tried within reasonable time” as provided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under section 11(b). This landmark decision set certain timelines for criminal trials in the country. While this decision may have served as a relief for the accused persons to have their cases expedited, the inabilities of many courts in the world to remedy trial delays have created a major ethical dilemma (Preston, 2021). As legal scholars have observed, lengthy trials coupled with multiple adjournment of court cases are a challenge to victims, the accused, and their families. Even after Jordan, resolution of criminal cases have become less efficient not only in Canada, but also in other Western countries.
Government Support and Court Resilience
Matyas, Wills, and Dewit (2021) have extensively explored the element of resilience and government support to courts during disasters as a way of resolving court cases without significant delays. Following the events after the Hurricane Katrina, the American Bar Association (ABA) created resources for courts through the approach of disaster preparedness and response, including a court rule that directed for the provision of legal services. The rule allows out-of-state lawyers who can provide legal services on pro bono basis in a jurisdiction that is impacted by a disaster. this is a model that exemplifies how government support can help in ensuring resilience in courts in times of disasters such as the Covid pandemic (Matyas, Wills & Dewitt, 2021). According to Matyas, Wills, and Dewitt (2021), while the pandemic has challenged several democratic institutions in unprecedented and complex ways, countries can afford to administer justice through resilience and resolve issues of backlog of cases and delays in justice. Besides government funding, other features of resilience include flexibility, self-organization, learning, and reflexive planning can help countries administer justice during future shocks. In disaster risk management, the concept of resilience is central and its roots can be traced back to the 190s in disciplines such as psychology, engineering, and environmental science (Matyas, Wills, & Dewitt, 2021). The authors define court resilience as building capacity of the court system to enhance or maintain its ability to administer justice and ensure that justice even in times of stress or shocks without compromising long-term prospects. In this definition, Matyas, Wills and Dewitt (2021) identify four features of a resilient court system: capacity to respond to shocks by incremental transformation or adjustment, responding to technological and natural hazards, ensuring both short and medium-term basic functioning, and doing justice that is seen to be done. As a framework, Matyas, Wills and Dewitt (2021) have questioned the failures of the Canadian court system during and after the pandemic on its ability to maintain or enhance its capacity to do justice, ensure that justice was seen to be done, and its long-erm prospects to ensure that justice was done or seen to be done.
Implicit bias in Criminal Justice System
Implicit bias is one of the reasons of delayed criminal cases in courts. Legal researchers have examined the extent of the failures to resolve certain criminal cases and the nature of the entire justice system as a whole. Berlemann and Christmann (2017) have associated precedents with court delays using evidence from a civil law country. efficiency of courts has always been classified as the output or the clearance rates, average disposition time, and the congestion rates based on cross-country or cross-court analyses (Berlemann & Christmann, 2017). In their study, Barlemann and Christmann (2017) have found that unbiased courts often decide correctly more often compared to the number of times they err. Su (2020) has written extensively on how efforts have been invested among legislators, the people and courts to eliminate bias in the criminal justice system. The problem of biasness in courts emerged following the opening of doors to more people than they did in the early days. Although the Equal Protection laws paved ways for courts to eject statutes that blocked people from serving as jurors based on the skin color and races, these efforts only worked as surface-level fixes to eliminate explicit or conscious biases (Su, 2020). Laws (2016) has reviewed the successful attempts to address delays in cases in developing countries particularly those criminal cases characterized by multiple adjournments. In the review, Laws (2016) provides the possible cause of court delays to be multiple adjournments. Nevertheless, due to implicit biases, some cases are treated with high priority based on the involved parties.
Adjournment of cases may be caused by lawyers when they have not had enough time to review the case files, and as Laws (2016) provides, poorly prepared lawyers may adjourn cases or when they have a conflict of scheduling. Secondly, prosecutors may also be reluctant to offer full information about the evidence to defense lawyers thus promoting then to request for case adjournment. Third, in cases of understaffed court workers, such as in the case where a single prosecutor is serving multiple cases at the same time, there is a highly propensity that there will be a backlog of cases that will remain unattended to. Fourth, judges may also initiate adjournment based on their level of preparedness. Judges can decide to postpone a hearing if they are unprepared or indisposed to hear a given case. Fifth, in case parties in the case such as witnesses or lawyers are absent, then the case may be post...