NCJ Number
74474
Date Published
1978
Length
33 pages
Annotation
This technical summary provides a method for testing the hypothesis that an effective form of administrative adjudication of traffic offenses exists and is more cost effective than making equivalent changes in the existing court system.
Abstract
Since New York City pioneered the development of an administrative adjudication program (AAP) for traffic offenses, 18 jurisdictions have decriminalized traffic offenses and now adjudicate them administratively. However, all the benefits associated with administrative adjudication can, in theory, be achieved by procedural or administrative changes in the courts. The following steps can help the analyst determine which approach is preferable for a given jurisdiction: (1) assess the problems in the existing system, (2) establish the objectives of a new system, (3) decide how many alternative system concepts should be included in the analysis, (4) point out special features of the new system, (5) consider which issues to address and how to measure input before collecting data or performing analytical work, (6) use legal research specialists to examine the issues of due process and separation of powers, (7) list persons and entities that will be affected by the system at the outset of the study, and (8) document the scope of the study before making final decisions on system features and beginning the analysis of benefits and costs. Special interest groups' concerns regarding an AAP for traffic offenses are considered, and issues related to courts, the police, prosecutors and defenders, and defendants are examined. Implications for State and local government revenues and traffic safety are discussed as well. Cost issues are analyzed through an examination of the New York, California, Seattle, and Rhode Island APP's Tabular data and a few Footnotes are provided.