DISPUTE PROCESSING - THE MEDIUM AND THE MESSAGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE (FROM THE STUDY OF CRIMINAL COURTS POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES, 1979, BY PETER F NARDULLI - SEE NCJ-62401)

• NCJ Number: 62403
• Author(s): F K ZEMANS
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 30 pages
• Corporate Author: Ballinger Publishing Co
• Publication Format: Document
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THE SOCIAL ROLE OF THE CRIMINAL COURT IS DESCRIBED ACCORDING TO A DISPUTE-PROCESSING MODEL.

Abstract

AMERICAN CRIMINAL COURTS ARE STRUCTURED TO DEAL WITH CASES ROOTED IN CONTROVERSY, WITH DISPUTE PROCESSING AS THE MEDIUM OF OPERATION. THE DISPUTE-PROCESSING MODEL VIEWS THE STEPS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESSING FROM THE OCCURRENCE OF INCIDENTS WHICH THE FORMAL LAW DESCRIBES AS CRIMINAL TO AND THROUGH THE CRIMINAL COURTS. THE MODEL ACCOUNTS FOR THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM'S HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE INITIATIVES OF PRIVATE CITIZENS, WHO ARE MOST OFTEN INSTRUMENTAL IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN INCIDENT IS BROUGHT WITHIN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS FOR RESOLUTION. A PERSON'S PERCEPTION OF AN INCIDENT AS CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION, RELATIONSHIP TO THE OFFENDER, AND PERCEIVED COSTS AND BENEFITS OF INVOKING CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESSING IS FREQUENTLY THE FIRST STEP IN ACTIVATING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE STRUCTURE TO DEAL WITH AN INCIDENT. ALTHOUGH THE FORMAL LAW ESTABLISHES NORMS TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CITIZENS TO BENEFIT FROM PUBLIC POWER, THE DETERMINATION OF WHO USES THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, HOW IT IS USED, AND FOR WHAT ENDS IS DEPENDENT UPON THE VARIABLES APPROPRIATE TO A DISPUTE-PROCESSING MODEL. MUCH OF THE WELL DOCUMENTED FAILURE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS OF THE SYSTEM'S CAPACITY TO ENFORCE NORMS RATHER THAN RESOLVE DISPUTES. A DISPUTE-PROCESSING MODEL COMPELS RECOGNITION THAT THE MODE OF OPERATION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IS SUCH THAT THE CASES THEY PROCESS, THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY ARE PROCESSED, AND THEIR OUTCOMES ARE DEPENDENT UPON THE PREFERENCES OF INITIAL DISPUTANTS, LATER DECISIONMAKERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THOSE PREFERENCES (POLICE), AND THE INTERESTS OF THE SURROGATE DISPUTANTS IN COURT (PROSECUTOR AND DEFENSE ATTORNEY). ADDITIONALLY, EACH STAGE DICTATES CONSIDERATION OF THE BROADER SOCIAL NORMS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTS IN QUESTION. ALTHOUGH THE DISPUTE PROCESSING MODEL DOES NOT REJECT THE FINDINGS OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON THE CRIMINAL COURTS, IT DOES SUGGEST THAT FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS TO TEST THE EFFICACY OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS CURRENTLY PROMINENT. NOTES AND REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)