Public opinion of the courts improves
By NANCY McCARTHY
Staff Writer
Three-quarters of attorneys and two-thirds of the public in California have
a favorable opinion of courts in the state, a significant change in attitude
from a decade ago, according to a Judicial Council survey released this month.
In 1992, when the public was last surveyed, only 46 percent of the public had
a positive opinion of the courts.
|
Vickrey |
Compared with other surveys that have found dissatisfaction with courts in
other states and with governmental institutions in general, the findings pleased
William C. Vickrey, administrative director of California’s courts.
Vickrey attributed the improvement to major changes in the structure and operations
of the courts, including changes in calendar management practices, the creation
of specialized courts (such as homeless courts) that respond to broad social
needs in the community, one-day one-trial for jurors and consistent rules from
county to county.
“The only thing I can point to that has changed that would result in
increased positive feelings is how the courts conduct their business,” he
said.
Although the overall news was good, the survey found plenty of room for improvement:
- The cost of hiring an attorney, regardless of people’s income level,
is the most commonly stated barrier to taking a case to court.
- Language difficulties appear to be more formidable in court than in other
settings.
- The greatest concern expressed by survey respondents focused on the influence
of politics on court decisions, proceedings that cannot be understood and
uneasiness about becoming involved with the courts.
- High-volume, low-stakes court dockets like traffic and small claims spread
ill will for the courts and leave litigants dissatisfied with their experience.
- Both attorneys and the public involved with family and juvenile cases
said they see less procedural fairness than litigants in other types of cases.
- African-Americans have the lowest approval rating of the courts, although
the proportion expressing a “poor” opinion declined from 47 percent
in 1992 to 18 percent now.
- Trust and confidence in the courts is lower than for the police but higher
than for the schools and similar to the U.S. Supreme Court. Local courts
attract greater public confidence than the state court system.
The survey, conducted by the National Center for State Courts and the Public
Research Institute at San Francisco State University, questioned more than
2,400 California adults and more than 500 randomly selected practicing attorneys
be-tween November 2004 and February 2005. Some questions were identical to
those asked in a 1992 survey.
One-third of the respondents were foreign-born, half were non-white and one
in five were non-English speakers.
Vickrey said the Judicial Council conducted the survey because “we felt
it was time we received a report card from the public about how they feel about
their court system so we can be guided about what to focus on in the future.”
The survey noted that the courts have undergone major changes in the intervening
years, including trial court unification and a shift in the funding base. How
the public views the courts is important, the survey authors wrote, because “whether
disputes are brought to the courts for resolution or decided elsewhere depends
in part on the perceived fairness and efficiency of the courts.”
The survey was designed to measure the level of approval and confidence in
the courts and sought answers to questions about procedural fairness, such
as whether rulings are unbiased, judges listen carefully and people are treated
with respect.
The “core concern” of the survey addressed issues of fairness,
which it found are the strongest predictors of whether members of the public
have confidence in the courts. Fairness of outcomes is secondary to procedural
fairness among members of the public, while the reverse is true for lawyers,
who gave more weight to outcomes in the survey.
On a scale of one to four, the survey found that attorneys tend to view procedures
in the California courts as fairer than the public.
“There are some significant concerns,” Vickrey acknowledged, “especially
in the area of whether or not our system is listening carefully to what (litigants)
have to say and their ability to participate. This includes how they are treated
by the first person they meet to how they perceive what’s happening in
the courtroom, whether the system is concerned about how people are impacted
by what it does and how it does it.”
Defendants in parking or traffic cases and litigants in family or juvenile
cases see less procedural fairness than litigants or defendants in other matters.
The survey found that those two groups present distinct challenges: low-stakes,
uncomplicated traffic cases versus high-stakes, ongoing and complex juvenile
and family matters.
“There is particular urgency,” the survey concluded, “in
improving the process of traffic and similar high-volume dockets in ways that
meet the criteria of procedural fairness. There is equal or greater urgency
to improving procedural fairness in family and juvenile cases.”
Seventy percent of both attorneys and members of the public agreed that people
are reluctant to go to court because they are uneasy about what might happen
to them.
Respondents were concerned about the length of time it takes to get a court
decision, a lack of childcare at court facilities, the distance from home to
court and language difficulties. Substantial proportions of practicing attorneys
disagreed with the public that judges follow the rules and that juries are
representative of their communities.
The survey offers a range of recommendations based on the results, including
a redesign for processing traffic and small claims courts, improved procedural
fairness in family and juvenile cases, exit surveys of litigants and an examination
of the practical aspects of court operations, such as hours of operation and
difficult-to-reach courthouses.
Vickrey said the challenges suggested by the survey findings are “not
impossible to meet,” and some solutions should be neither costly nor
difficult. “We have a huge captive audience that the bar and the courts
can focus on,” Vickrey said. “Part of the message to the legal
community is that we need to assume some significant responsibility for how
people view our justice system. The survey provides a roadmap for how we can
continue to make progress and respond to the needs of the public.”
|