Can Anyone Help?

Court Management Policy

Kathy Posey

Colorado Technical University

Court Management Policy

Introduction

There is overwhelming evidence that the criminal justice system in the country is not efficient and not at all sustainable. Problems such as the overcrowding of prisons, the slow speed of processes which lead to case backlog, so much delay in resolving cases and excessive costs being suffered in the systems are all factors that have contributed to the crippling of the system over the years. One can confidently say that the system is not able to effectively fulfil its purpose as a result of these problems and reforms are necessary. To make the system a little more sustainable there is a call for more efforts to be geared towards restorative justice for example through implementation of the victim-offender mediation (VOM) program (Ness & Strong, 2015) whose viability is going to be assessed in the body section below.

Policy Proposal

The victim-offender mediation (VOM) program as a strategy to achieving restorative justice is also referred to as first Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programme (Cornwell, 2013). It is being used as an alternative way of solving conflicts rather than having to take every case to court something that is creating the need to expand the courts and the correctional system in order to accommodate more (Ness & Strong, 2015). When weighing the cost implication of implementing either the victim-offender mediation (VOM) program versus the expansion of the courts and corrections staff and facility infrastructure the difference can almost negligible. This is because each of these strategic alternatives needs to be implemented in a very structured manner. The cost of expanding the courts and their resources and infrastructure will go towards getting more room and more infrastructures on one hand.

On the other hand, the cost of implementing the victim-offender mediation (VOM) program goes towards having the right and functional structures in place to make sure that juvenile crimes are solved effectively. Both methods need a good deal of investment to make each of them effectively functional. The cost variation for implementation of either of these strategies, therefore, can vary depending on the structures that any state wants to take up. This same case applies in the determination of how much time needed to implement either of the strategies. The answer on whether it can take less time to implement the victim-offender mediation (VOM) program can vary from one party to another depending on factors such as the structure designed to be implemented for example the scope of planned expansion vs. the scope of the victim-offender mediation (VOM) program and the resources available during the time of implementation among other factors.

While it is hard to give a clear-cut answer on whether the cost will be less for implementation of the victim-offender mediation (VOM) program and whether it will take less time, more focus needs to be put on the benefits that each of these strategies brings and the how sustainable these will be. At the end of the day, the best strategy is the one that will be far much sustainable in its ability to make the criminal justice system better (Ness & Strong, 2015). This is because it would not be wise to implement a strategy that is not sustainable just because it costs less and takes less time. It would be more reasonable to implement a strategy with the potential of solving the issues that the criminal justice system is facing today sustainably even if it costs the state more.

As mentioned earlier, VOM program is a restorative program which allows individuals involved in a case to seek reconciliation between both as soon as the conflict occurs. The good thing about the mediation program is that the numerous court procedures are taken out of the way when resolving the case and attention is given to a case consistently until it is solved without the numerous postponements being made on the case (Umbreit, 2000). These are elements of the VOM program that would help to make sure the average time taken between an arrest and disposition of the case is shortened. This because the average time is lengthy in the court system because of the numerous procedures as well as the numerous numbers of cases which push court procedure dates for one case very far away from each other and thus taking more time to dispose of a case.

Further, it is almost obvious that the implementation of the VOM program is something that would reduce the case backlog in the courts. This is because such a program provides an alternative to having all cases however minor being taken to court. In the event where such a program is in place only specific juvenile cases, mostly the serious ones would need court attention. With fewer cases being handled officially in court, the processing of cases would be speedier and this, in turn, would reduce the case backlog altogether. The VOM programs, therefore, have a greater capacity and potential of reducing court case backlog and thereby shorten the average time between arrest and case disposition.

The benefits of the VOM programs are largely confirmed by the track record they have had over the years. VOM programs have been in use since the 1970s and they started in Canada. The program was tested in Canada and found to work effectively, and this led to it being widespread in Europe and in the United States. While they started being just a few programs today they are in hundreds in the United States. In the past few years VOM programs in various states in the United States found in Orange County as well as Portland have managed to solve the case backlog issues in courts in these areas by diverting more than 1000 juvenile cases and hence reducing the overcrowded nature of the criminal justice system in the past few years (Umbreit, 2000). This is evidence to the usefulness of the VOM program and its ability to also stand the test of time.

The use of VOM program has over the years proven to offer numerous benefits for offenders as well as the community. First, for the offender, the process reducing their risk being unheard and being left traumatized. The court system is quite busy and very little effort is put on considering the offender's side of the story or their feeling. Often offenders in the court system are left feeling bitter and angry as a result of the aspect of not being listen to for example because they are seen more in the eyes of an offender and having to go through harsh processes which potentially leave them traumatized (Ali, 2018).

In the mediation process, this is taken away because the environment is friendlier, and the offender has a chance to also explain themselves. The second benefit towards the offender is the fact that the process leaves them better in terms of their behavior compared to the court system. VOM program focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment which are the focus of the court system. The mediation process allows the offender to take greater responsibility of their actions and be more accountable and this by understanding what wrong they did and its impact and then allowing them to play a more active role in changing their behavior. This point leads to the first benefit to society and that is reduced crime rate.

The outcome of rehabilitation is lower crime behavior in the part of the offender and therefore these results in a lower number of repeat crimes (Cornwell, 2013). For the society, mediation processes also help to enhance social cohesion. At the root of this process are values of forgiveness and repentance. This helps to foster a healthier relationship between the offender and the direct and indirect victims and hence once a case is settled the conflict does not live on. The victim does not live out of fear as a result as compared to the case of the court system where bitter feelings of the offender from the punishment can push them to revenge further on the victim even after serving their sentences. The social costs of the process mainly fall on the victim since it is very easy for the needs of the victims to be overlooked as more focus is placed on the offender (Ali, 2018). To prevent this, mediators should be well trained and seasoned to make sure they consider the needs of both parties.

The VOM program is considered as being most appropriate for cases which involve violation against an individual or the community and especially cases that are non-violent and cases which are considered minor (Umbreit, 2000). Violent cases and major cases such as murder are best handled by the courts due to the serious nature of the crimes and hence there is a need to exclude them. In implementing the VOM program, Administrative Office of the Courts may experience major challenges in designing a system where effective oversight will be provided on the cases that are handled outside the courtroom to make sure they are handled effectively without complicating the process and also an issue on training and credentialing of mediators because this process requires to be driven by experts with adequate training in the alternative conflict resolution methods (Cornwell, 2013).

Conclusion

The history of the VOM program is evidence to the fact that it works well in helping solve the major problems being experienced in the criminal justice system. This reputation is enough to help sell the idea to agencies that can help provide support provided that the design of these programs is good enough to meet the intended goals and solve the problems it is set to address. For this reason, it is important to focus on coming up with sustainable programs, in order to reap the benefits discussed above in the most efficient and timely way. The victim-offender mediation (VOM) program has the potential of solving the numerous issues in the court system as discussed above and thus needs to be adopted.

References

Ali, S. (2018). Court mediation reform: efficiency, confidence and perceptions of justice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Cornwell, D. (2013). Civilising criminal justice: an international restorative agenda for penal reform. Hampshire, U.K. La Vergne, TN: Waterside Press USA and Canada distributor, Ingram Book Co.

Ness, D. & Strong, K. (2015). Restoring justice: an introduction to restorative justice. Abingdon, Oxon New York: Routledge.

Umbreit, M. (2000). The handbook of victim offender mediation: an essential guide to practice and research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.