“A Thousand Small Sanities” and Why Judges Matter
“A Thousand Small Sanities” is worth a look for anyone interested in learning about rational, incremental criminal justice system reform. It’s a succinct, straightforward history of criminal justice reform in New York City. In Small Sanities, the Center for Court Innovation Director Greg Berman writes from the Center’s London-based project, the Centre for Justice Innovation, and shares research and his own experiences with how humanizing the justice system can lower crimes and costs. One recent study comparing defendant outcomes in drug courts to those in traditional courts shows that judges are at the heart of humanizing the system.
The study showed that the strongest predictor of reduced future criminality was a defendant’s attitude towards the judge. Having positive perceptions of the judge was also the greatest predictor of reduced drug use and reduced violations of supervision. This impact was seen across all demographics, regardless of race, gender, or criminal history. Even defendants with extensive prior involvement in the system or those who had received unfavourable sentences reported reduced criminality when they perceived the judge to have treated them fairly and respectfully.
The drug court study evaluated judicial interaction in two ways. First, researchers surveyed defendants about their perceptions of the judge. Defendants rated the judge on indicators such as approachability, respectful treatment, knowledge of the defendant’s case, efforts to help the defendant succeed, and allowing the defendant to tell his/her side of the story. Second, researchers used structured court observations to document each judge’s use of certain interactive behaviours, such as making regular eye contact, addressing the defendant directly and allowing him/her to ask questions, and providing explanations of court orders.
Judges matter–and so does a defendant’s perception of that judge. That’s why, through the Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County project, we conduct nonpartisan evaluations with laypeople as well as lawyers, and provide performance improvement plans to judges.
Add-on: An Illinois State Bar Association Committee is examining the harm of perceived judicial impartiality that may follow from unbridled campaign fundraising. The above impact on drug court defendants is just one example of how perceived judicial fairness can dramatically alter our court systems.