Roger A. Hanson

Arbitration and Case Processing Time: Lessons From Fulton County*

This paper presents information on the relationship between court-annexed arbitration and case processing time. Are arbitration cases resolved more expeditiousfy than court cases? Is arbitration expeditious for some cases and not others? Does the outcome of the arbitration hearing affect the appeal rate? These and related questions are addressed through an examination of the Georgia Fulton County Superior Court Arbitration Program, which was introduced in the spring of 1986. A review of court and arbitration cases indicates that arbitration improves case processing time for the cases referred to it without increasing the processing time for the rest of the courts caseload. While all basic types of civil cases are handled more expeditiousfy under arbitration, contract and collection cases undergo the greatest reduction in case processing time. Finally, both the size of the arbitration award and its relation to the amount claimed affect the rate at which parties appeal the arbitration award.

A Tale of Two Laws: The U.S. Congress Confronts Habeas Corpus Petitions and Section 1983 Lawsuits

Actions by state prisoners have comprised a large and growing body of litigation in the U.S. federal courts over the past thirty years. State prisoners can challenge the validity of their state trial court convictions (habeas corpus petitions) and the constitutionality of the conditions of their confinement to state prisons and jails (Section 1983 lawsuits). Currently, one out of every five civil cases filed in the federal system is brought by a jail or prison inmate. When in the past did these cases begin to arise? What is the present trend? What does the future hold concerning the number of cases likely to be filed? These questions are at the heart of the current research. Care is needed in addressing these queries because it is neither easy nor obvious to know what propels the volume of litigation. Moreover, the future is especially difficult to predict in light of recent legislation adopted by the United States Congress to limit the number of habeas corpus petitions and the number of Section 1983 lawsuits filed each year. The unique contribution of the current research is threefold. First, an improved methodology is used to describe past patterns and to forecast future trends. Simply stated, prisoner litigation is hypothesized to be related to the number of prisoners. As the number of prisoners increases, the volume of litigation increases proportionately. What is not obvious about this relationship is that it has persisted over the past decades despite substantial changes in legal doctrines designed to affect the filing of the litigation. Second, the effects of two major congressional actions passed in 1996 to limit prisoner litigation are examined and assessed for their success in achieving their intended objectives. The first of these, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which sought to restrict habeas corpus petitions, is judged to have virtually no impact. The second piece of legislation, the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, which sought to curtail lawsuits against correctional officials, appears to have lowered the volume of litigation in the short-term, but has not disrupted the underlying link between the number of prisoners and the number of awsuits. Finally, estimates are made of the future volume of litigation and the corresponding number of federal judges needed to resolve prisoner litigation. These estimates have the advantage of being based on significant statistical relationships and accounting for the effects of recent congressional action.

So the verdict is in—What Happens Next? The Continuing Story of Tort Awards in the State Courts

AbstractFor both scholars who seek to understand the civil litigation process and reformers who seek to change the civil justice system, decisions by juries are a central focus of attention. Juries have assumed a special significance because they often are viewed as the ultimate arbiters of civil disputes. Yet, this conceptualization is but one chapter in the continuing story. Posttrial negotiation and litigation offer clear means to challenge the trial court verdict and are pursued in a sizable number of cases. This article expands our knowledge of the litigation process by clarifying the relationship between cases that end following the trial court verdict and those that undertake some form of posttrial activity. Using data on bench and jury trials from 27 state trial courts of general jurisdiction, quantitative methods are used to distinguish the characteristics of cases that accept the trial court judgment from those cases that settle following the verdict and from those cases that initiate appeals. I...

The Rule of Law and Legal Efficacy: Private Values Versus General Standards

LTHOUGH citizens do not always comply with laws they approve, a primary factor which affects the ability of a law to produce deliberate social change Xis the degree of public support for it.1 A growing literature examines and speculates on a wide range of variables which shape individual attitudes toward certain laws, and thus influence the degree of compliance,2 e.g., perceptions of the legitimacy of the law, compatibility of the law with cultural or regional norms, and attitudes toward the source of the law. The same literature examines a number of variables which might influence an individual to obey a law despite his partial or serious disagreement with it (e.g., sanctions or partiotism). While prior research rightly focuses on the role of individual attitudes as determinants of compliance, in this paper we examine a largely ignored but potentially important factor in the compliance equation -public commitment to rule of law. In Western societies particularly, there is a tendency to assume public acceptance of socially prescribed rules which members of society not only obey, but accept as general standards that should be applied equitably to all members of society. A general standard stipulates how a law is to be applied prior to and independent of the consequences of a specific application. A general standard implies that unless there are relevant differences between individuals (e.g., adults vs. minors), a law is to be applied uniformly. Non-relevant differences, such as race, however, would not be a justifiable basis for variable applications of a law.3

Exploring the Theory and Practice of Sentencing Reform

Just Sentencing, by Richard Frase, covers a lot of ground in formulating prescriptions for a more coherent, principles-based system of criminal sentencing in the United States. Frase makes the point early and often that even the most elegant theory of punishment is useless without clear guidance on real-world application and implementation. Therefore, he takes care to make the concrete connection between sentencing in theory and sentencing in practice, with particular attention to what he believes are the best state guideline systems. Consequently, Frase’s schema offers valuable and provocative reading for the entire range of practitioners and policymakers responsible for criminal laws, policies, procedures, and practices; analytical observers in centers of research; public policy commentators; and attentive citizens. This book definitely has an audience for what Frase calls an “expanded limiting-retributive state guidelines model” or, more simply, the “expanded model.” The book proposes to unify existing and developing ideas on the proper purposes of sentencing offenders who face possible confinement in jail or prison. Frase contends that for the past several decades the world of criminal sentencing has been rocked by change and “fragmentation” leading to a lack of national coherence on sentencing purposes and penalties. The system of indeterminate sentencing has collapsed (along with the rehabilitative ideal), and has often been replaced by more determinate sentencing systems (including mandatory minimums) with a distinct preference for more punitive penalties. The rush to harsher penalties has corresponded with a substantial, manyfold increase ∗Brian Ostrom is affiliated with the National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA, USA. Corresponding author. Email: bostrom@ncsc.org. Roger Hanson is a consultant at the National Center for State Courts, Denver, CO, USA. Criminal Justice Ethics, 2016 Vol. 35, No. 1, 80–86, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2016.1148970

From the Special Issue Editors

The origins, processing, and consequences of lawsuits seeking compensation for a wide range of alleged harms remain lively topics of public debate and discussion. Questions cut to the heart of concerns about the efficacy of our legal system, the power of interest groups, and the health of our economy. Is the amount of litigation too large, too small, or just about right? Are lawyers encouraging the filing of frivolous cases, or are individuals taking their lumps without seeking relief in the courts? What happens when individuals and corporations decide to slug it out in court? Who wins? Who loses? And how can patterns of verdicts and awards be understood in the context of tort reform? Are trial verdicts final, or do litigants and appeals courts render the trial verdict only one step on the road toward an ultimate resolution?