Judicial Reform, the Myth of the Triad, and the Decline of Confidence in the Courts (From Politics of Judicial Reform, P 69-83, 1982, Philip L Dubois, ed. - See NCJ-84771)

• NCJ Number: 84775
• Author(s): R A L Gambitta; M L May
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 15 pages
• Sale Source: Lexington Books
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Judicial reforms have helped to displace the traditional, prototypical role of the judge as (1) the neutral third party who adjudicates cases by (2) applying preexisting rules to factual situations and legal arguments presented in adversary proceedings and who then (3) formally explains his or her decision in writing for public scrutiny.

Abstract

Past reforms have contributed to the current popular dissatisfaction with the courts by progressively altering the nature and functions of judging in the United States. During the past 25 years, reform efforts have emphasized increased access to the courts, decreased caseloads, and reduction in court delays. Although these are laudable goals, judicial reform has inadvertently promoted and legitimated the resolution of civil and criminal disputes by informal negotiation and conciliation rather than through formal adjudication. To the extent that present reform measures divert cases away from both courts and the traditional method of adjudication advanced by the so-called myth of the triad, court reforms may uninintentionally erode public support for the courts. Moreover, such reform measures may also undermine the foundation upon which the political legitimacy of the judiciary depends. One table and 68 references are included.