From the Editors
Even before the Republic was formed, America's Founding Fathers pledged that it would be based not on arbitrary power exercised by a remote and unaccountable executive, but on law and justice. For the first time, courts would be established not just to punish crime, but to affirm and protect rights.
Accordingly, the courts were assigned a central role in the American system of government when the Constitution was framed in Philadelphia in 1787.
Indeed, the courts were to be a co-equal branch of government with specific powers that could not be abrogated by the executive or by the legislature -- a radical idea at the time. Equally radical was the notion that the courts' ultimate responsibility was to uphold the rights of the people enshrined in the Constitution.
Many aspects of the U.S. legal system, such as its adversarial nature and trial by jury, have been enduring features of the courts from the beginning. But the Founding Fathers knew that the courts needed to adapt to meet the demands of the unknown future. They also knew that American democracy was a work in progress and that forming a more perfect union would require change and growth. Accordingly, flexibility was built into the system so that new ideas, such as specialized courts that could not be envisaged in the 18th century, are a reality in the 21st.
This electronic journal focuses not so much on the structure of U.S. courts (see the September 1999 electronic journal on "How U.S. Courts Work" at http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0999/ijde/ijde0999.htm for that), but on their changing face, especially over the last few decades as court caseloads have surged, as media have become increasingly present, and as rapid technological advances have helped streamline the management of the courts and the way trials are conducted.
In our lead article, Richard Van Duizend, a principal court management consultant with the National Center for State Courts, examines the evolution of U.S. courts under a separation of powers system, the prerogatives of state and federal courts, the development of judicial independence, and innovations ranging from plea-bargaining and various forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to the increasing use of specialized courts.
A considerable number of court cases in recent decades have involved drug offenses as both the states and the federal government adopted a tougher stance toward the possession and, particularly, the distribution of illegal drugs. As Carson Fox, National Drug Court Institute fellow and former solicitor and drug court administrator for the state of North Carolina, and West Huddleston, director of the National Drug Court Institute, document in their article, specialized drug courts emerged in the 1980s as a result of a grassroots effort to cope with these offenses, and their growth has been meteoric.
The focus on drug courts in the press and professional journals might leave the impression that specialized courts are a phenomenon of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. But as Luis G. Perez, a presiding judge in the Worcester Juvenile Court in Worcester, Massachusetts, outlines in his article, specialized courts to deal with juvenile offenses have been around for over a century. Juvenile courts are now so commonplace in every state of the union, it is hard to believe, he says, that children were once subject, without exception, to the adult court system -- and to adult punishments. In his article, Judge Perez lays particular emphasis on the pendulum of public opinion which has alternately led to periods of expansion of juvenile courts and to their limitation.
In the 18th century, it is doubtful whether anyone used the term "domestic violence." But there is no doubt that it occurred. Kristin Littel, a consultant on "violence against women" issues for the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice, says in her article that public consciousness about this crime was slow in coming, but became widespread during the 1970s. This increased awareness, and more aggressive prosecution of the crime, led to the development of domestic violence courts and treatment of domestic violence cases in family courts.
With growing caseloads, technology has become increasingly important as a tool, particularly to manage and streamline the courts. In their article, Edward C. Prado, a former U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas, who was recently confirmed to an appointment on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and Leslie Sara Hyman, an attorney at Cox & Smith Incorporated in San Antonio, Texas, show how technology can be utilized to provide greater access to more efficient court proceedings, focusing on one model courtroom -- that of Judge Prado himself.
In our concluding article, Gary Hengstler, director of the Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Courts and Media at the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada, discusses the media's role in modern courts. He looks at the interaction of the courts and the media, how the media's increasing demands are accommodated, and how the integrity of the court system is maintained under ever increasing media scrutiny.