Public trust and confidence in the state courts throughout this nation is at an all time low.  However, this phenomenon has plagued our state courts for more than two decades.  In its landmark survey "Public Image of the Courts" (1977), the National Center for State Courts concluded "...that the public was poorly informed about the courts and those having knowledge and experience with the courts voiced the greatest dissatisfaction and criticism.  Now, 22 years later, in its 1999 National Survey "how the Public Views the State Courts," much has remained the same.  In the area of Trust/Confidence, in particular, only 23% of the respondents had a "great deal of trust/confidence in the institution within their community."

In comparison to public institutions throughout their communities in general, state courts fell at the lower end of the spectrum only surpassing State Legislatures at 18%, and the Media at 10%.  Not surprisingly, according to the survey, only 10% of the respondents felt that the courts in their communities handled cases in an "excellent" manner.  Overall, state court's received a score of "average."  What is surprising is the public's perception of the state court's ability to enforce its rulings.  According to the study, a clear majority of respondents, approximately 82%, agreed with the statement "Courts do not make sure that orders are enforced."

Although it has been said that public perception is rarely an accurate indicator of reality, this statistic (if only half accurate) has far reaching ramifications in light of the fact that 75-80% of all defendants will receive some form of probation (either supervised or unsupervised).  What then are taxpaying citizens and crime victims to expect?  If the public's perception is wrong and a more accurate figure is 50%, does this mean that court orders requiring payment of child support (for example) or restitution would be complied with only half of the time?  If so, this does not bode well for any plaintiff pondering the decision whether or not to seek remedy via a judicial proceeding (criminal or otherwise).

Frank A. Bennack, Jr., President and chief Executive Officer, the Hearst Corporation (which funded the study)), in presenting the executive summary, identified one key weakness, "...the issue of responsiveness."  "Here the numbers are both simple and clear...and a bit troubling," he said.  "Two out of three African-Americans, a slim margin of Hispanics, and four out of ten whites believe the courts are out of touch with their communities."  What then is the greatest challenge for the state courts?  According to 87% of the participants at the 1997 National Conference on the Future of the State Judiciary, the single greatest challenge facing the state courts (as an institution) "was in improving its relationship with the public."

Whether the state courts will be successful in reversing the continual decline in public trust/confidence depends in large measure upon its willingness to forgo the status quo.  However, as the studies have shown, the state courts (as an institution) possess a remarkable propensity to be consistent.  Therefore, its ability to achieve a (court-to-community) connection is highly unlikely for two reasons.  First, the nature of the institution: over emphasis upon tradition and judicial precedence promulgates a natural reluctance to change.  Second, public sentiment: recent controversial rulings by the courts, in an already extremely fragile and tenuous environment, will make the court-to-community connection more difficult.

Background:  David Stiver is a former Project Director for the Fourth Judicial District Court's Crime
Victim Restitution Collection Program.  He served at the Fourth Judicial District Court from 1987 to 1996.  He has lived in Colorado Springs for 22 years.

Experience:  He has conducted extensive research into judicial reform.