Abstract.
Community courts are localized courts that aim to integrate the authority of the criminal justice system to address the issues faced by both offenders and their communities. The Midtown Community Court was the first of its kind, paving the way for thirty other community courts. These courts play a crucial role in reducing crime and recidivism rates in neighborhoods. This paper will examine the goals and roles of community courts to determine their effectiveness, suggest ways to improve efficiency, and evaluate their impact on the criminal justice system.
Community courts, according to Anderson (1996), are neighborhood centered courts that try to connect the authority of the criminal justice system with intent of tackling local problems. Community courts can be of different forms, but all of them are founded on two principle aims; finding solutions to community problems and creating partnership. These courts, as pointed out by Community Court (n.d.), attempt to develop novel associations, both inside the criminal justice system and with stakeholders from the outside such as merchants, residents, learning and religious institutions as well. Community courts were founded on five major principles: restoring the community, developing a link between communities and the criminal justice system, helping offenders deal with factors that lead to crime, providing concrete information to court system, and establishing a physical courthouse which reflects these objectives (Community Court n.d.). Community courts test new and aggressive approaches to safety of the public instead of simply responding to crimes that have been committed. Midtown Community Court, established in 1993 as asserted by Anderson (1996), was the first court of the kind in New York City. Since then, more than 30 community courts have been established around the country. Midtown community court was established as a 3 year expression project, set in such a way as to test the capability of criminal courts to form closer associations with the community and establish a collaborative approach of coming up with solutions to various problems. The main purpose of establishing community courts was to offer an efficient as well as accessible justice for petty offenses (Freiberg, 2002). Freiberg (2002) notes that community courts were founded on the belief that traditional courts did not respond effectively to the need of the defendants as well as the community. This belief was based on various prepositions which include: that traditional court system dedicated inadequate time as well as resources to quality of life offenses; that citizens felt isolated and shut off from the court system; that when the community is subjected to quality of life crimes, it has a role in the production of justice as well as a role to play at the courthouse; and that crimes that are considered low level such as prostitution and destruction, erode the quality of life in the community and develop an atmosphere favorable for flourishing of other serious crimes (National Institute of Justice , n. d.). Community courts, as illustrated by Independent Television Service (n.d.), were established to do substantially more than just reproduce the usual processing of minor offenses in a locally-based setting. Midtown community court was situated in a central location in order to help solve problems that were specific to that area (Anderson, 1996). This area was characterized by high levels of quality of life crime; extreme dissatisfaction with the outcomes of the traditional court by the community; evident signs of disorder; and groups of persistent high-rate criminals who had serious problems, including homelessness and drug addiction. Midtown community court was established with an aim of making justice constructive, evident, effective, and most of all to make it responsive as well as meaningful to victims defendants as well the community at large (Sviridoff, Curtis, and Ostrom, 2000).
Community courts are a unique approach to justice in New York City. These courts focus on addressing low-level crimes and quality-of-life issues that affect neighborhoods. They aim to provide a more personalized and community-oriented approach to justice, rather than just punishing offenders.
For about 20 years that have passed, New York City was characterized by numerous murders, burglaries, thefts and drug deals (Independent Television Service, n.d.). Contrary to other cities, New York’s crime problems were not limited to a small number of inner-city neighborhoods that could be prevented. Bryant Park, situated at the center of the city just next to the New York Public Library, was an open air market for drugs; Grand Central Terminal, a huge flophouse; the Port Authority Bus Terminal, was a grim gauntlet for travelers escaping the nuisance of beggars, burglars, as well as impoverished drug addicts (Schill, 1999). The extreme crime level in New York City made riders abandon subways for fear of being assaulted (White, Willensky and Leadon, 2010). Disorder had created an environment that threatened all the sectors of urban life. Uncontrollable situations including prostitution, scams, drug dealing, aggressiveness and burglary threatened the economy of Times Square (National Institute of Justice (U.S.), (n.d.). Projects had been developed by the New York Police Department to tackle the rampant crime, but were unable. Sporadic police strategies were not enough to handle crime. As New York was suffering in crime as White, Willensky and Leadon (2010) argues, an idea cropped up that one day order would be restored. Restoration of order required cooperation of different private as well as governmental agencies. Attempts were made to try and restore order at Bryant Park but failed. Strategies were also devised to try and bring to an end disorder in the transport sector and get rid of graffiti from subway trains. Crime rate in New York City however, astonishingly dropped in the 1990s (White, Willensky and Leadon, 2010). Independent Television Service, (n.d.) states that although other cities also experienced a decline in crime, none was as sharp as New York’s. Neighborhood communities began demanding for restoration of order; even those that had been quite lenient with the unruly behavior. The judicial branch also got involved. The involvement of the judicial system resulted in the establishment of the Midtown Community Court in 1993 (Anderson, 1996). This community court was established with intent of handling those who commit minor offences. Midtown community criminal court was developed out of a clear frustration with the conventional response to quality of life offences (Sviridoff, Curtis, and Ostrom, 2000). Business leaders, neighborhood residents and justice system innovators were among the supporters of this initiative. These groups felt that the grievances of the community were not being looked at, the way they should have, by the justice system (Sviridoff, Curtis, and Ostrom, 2000). They also believed that justice system could use its influence to tackle the causes and conditions, which contribute to crime, more effectively (Independent Television Service, n.d.). Various agencies in the city, following their own interest, started attempting to restore order in their domains through the use of different tactics and approaches. The New York police Department was not left behind in the process of trying to restore order in the city. The order maintenance movement grew bigger after the York police Department joined the endeavor. The midtown community court developed a nonprofit agency, Center for Court Innovation, which assisted in developing the Red Hook Community Court in 1998 (Sviridoff, Curtis, and Ostrom, 2000). Community justice has grown remarkably over the past fifteen years, both locally and globally. Various community courts that have been established since Midtown Community Court include: the Harlem Community Justice Center in Manhattan; San Francisco Community Justice Center; Red Hook Community Justice Center in Brooklyn; Harlem Community Justice Center; and Bronx Community Solutions among many others.
The main role of community courts, as illustrated by Anderson (1996), is to handle minor offenses such as public drunkenness and other disorderly behaviors. They accomplish this by sentencing offenders to social services and treatment plans. Community courts play a unique role in decongesting jails that are crowded with minor offenders. Offenders who are regularly arrested for offenses such as trespassing, public drunkenness, and panhandling crowd prisons and deplete police resources (Clear, 2007). Handling regularly committed minor offenses is becoming more strenuous for the community as budgets tighten and prison populations increase. Community Courts come in handy in these situations because they sentence petty offenders to social services like substance abuse and mental health treatment rather than to prison.Community justice has played a vital role in reducing over-imprisonment over the last few years. It ensures that all criminal behaviors are dealt with without necessarily involving imprisonment (Independent Television Service, n.d.). By offering them a chance to live out of jail and look for the assistance they need, community courts have helped turn around the lives of many offenders who would otherwise be trapped in a life of hard drugs and crime.Before community courts were established, defendants charged with petty offenses were usually fined or imprisoned or released into society without supervision or penalty; this practice did not take care of the social service needs of both the community and the defendant (Freiberg, 2002).
Community Court (n.d.) emphasizes that community courts address the social needs of the offender, victim, and community. When found guilty under this system, defendants can choose between community service or paying a fine. Sviridoff, Curtis, and Ostrom (2000) illustrate that community courts offer various services to tackle issues such as joblessness, lack of education, and addiction. Through these services, community courts effectively address underlying problems as well as antisocial behavior. In New York City, community courts have reduced crime rates while enhancing justice (Anderson, 1996).
Community courts represent core values of the judicial system by providing a fair response to criminal conduct. Offenders are required to pay back society through work projects in their neighborhoods such as tree planting or cleaning subway stations (Sviridoff et al., 2000). Research shows that community courts achieve their objectives which include faster justice delivery; visible justice in communities where crimes occur; implementation of low-level crime; marshaling local residents’ energy towards establishing social projects; and highlighting how minor offenses affect communities (Freiberg, 2002).
Unlike traditional sentencing practices for petty offenses that focus on punishment alone,Frazer(2006) notes thatcommunitycourts aim at bringing together the criminal justice system with communities to find solutions to problems.Communitycourts believe in preventing crimes rather than punishing offenders severely.Community court administrators view crimes as a result of both individual responsibility and societal factors(Schill ,1999).Therefore,the court seeks treatments on both levels by addressing factors leading to criminal behavior while preventing recidivism(Freiberg ,2002).
According to Community Court (n.d.), community courts have gained more approval in the city compared to conventional courts. There is considerable evidence showing that when people perceive the criminal justice system as fair, they are more likely to comply with legal authority, laws, and court mandates. Studies indicate that offenders are more likely to obey the law if they feel fairly treated by the criminal justice system (Community Court, n.d.). In comparison with severe punishment, community services produce more positive behavior among offenders (Clear, 2006).
Community criminal justice plays a significant role of making communities safer by increasing the voluntary law abiding behavior by way of promoting defendant’s and community’s sense of fairness (Anderson, 1996). Sviridoff, Curtis, and Ostrom (2000) argue that community courts focus on problem solving. Due to the fact that most offenders in the community eventually pass through the community courts, it seems sensible for the courts to uphold close links to the community. If people see justice as being part of the locality, then the actuality of security as well as safety are more likely to be obtained. Community courts, through believing that citizens are clients to whom the criminal justice system must be liable, enhances confidence of the public in the justice system, thereby establishing the much needed trust in addition to changing the court system into a way of intervention thus improving the value of life in the locality (Freiberg, 2002). Anderson (1996) argues that community courts contribute to enhancements in quality of life conditions within the city and in the neighborhoods. Research has also shown that community courts results in reduction in the level of prostitution and illegal vending National Institute of Justice (U.S.), n.d.). During the first fourteen months of inauguration the Midtown Community Center arraigned approximately 12, 000 defendants (Anderson, 1996). Currently the court hears about 60 new cases everyday. Court administrators argue that the work carried out by community court is higher than that of other busy urban courts. Research has shown that majority of offenders sentenced to community service or treatment programs voluntarily continue with those programs even after completing their sentence, which is very much different from traditional sentencing (Frazer, 2006). Community courts also produce tangible results for defendant, victims, and communities, for example through reduction of recidivism, increasing community safety, linking victims with needed services and rehabilitating offenders (Frazer, 2006). Community justice system has also made processing of justice faster. Petty offenders are arrested, arraigned, sentenced and within the same or a few days, they complete their sentence. Criminal court has, therefore according to Frazer (2006), made accountability faster as delays between conviction and assignments to carry out community service sentences have made it easy for many to avoid their obligations. This practice has won the praise of police, defendants, residents as well as the criminal courts administrators. The Red Hook Community Justice Center, one of the community courts, aims at bringing to an end the cycle of quality of life crime by assisting offenders with on-site social services as well as administering sentences that have a magnitude equal to the crime and are beneficial to the community (Community Court, n.d.). The Red Hook Community Justice Center, according to (Community Court, n.d.), processes almost 80% of the cases filled within its authority. The Red Hook Community Justice Centre, therefore, processes almost all cases except for major crimes such as felony and civil trials. The Red Hook Community Justice Center is multi-jurisdictional; this means that a judge in this system can hear cases that would otherwise go to three different courts, that is, civil, criminal and family. Judges in the community courts, unlike the conventional system, work closely with social service counselors so as to acquire a detailed context on past issues (Community Court, n.d.). Research, as pointed out by (Community Court, n.d.), has shown that three quarters of offenders under the Red Hook comply with sanctions as compared to a half at the traditional system. Bronx Community Solutions is a scheme that aims at applying a problems solving strategy to quality of life crime in the Bronx. This scheme provides court administrators with various options for sentencing for non-violent crime. Through merging help and punishment Bronx Community Solutions aims at minimizing Bronx’s dependence on expensive as well as unproductive short term jail sentences, and establish public confidence that justice system is holding offenders liable and providing them with assistance they need to bring their criminal conduct to an end. Harlem community justice center aims at providing solutions to neighborhood problems in East and Central Harlem (Community Court, n.d.).
Conclusion.
Community courts are neighborhood-centered courts that aim to connect the authority of the criminal justice system with the intent of tackling local problems. They are founded on two principal aims: finding solutions to community problems and creating partnerships. Community courts were founded on the belief that traditional courts did not respond effectively to the needs of defendants as well as the community. These courts test new and aggressive approaches to public safety instead of simply responding to crimes that have been committed.
The Midtown Community Court was the first community court in New York City, situated in a central location in order to help solve problems specific to that area. Other community courts include The Red Hook Community Justice Center, which aims at ending cycles of quality-of-life crime by assisting offenders with on-site social services as well as administering sentences beneficial and proportionate for both offenders and communities; Bronx Community Solutions, which is a program applying problem-solving strategies for quality-of-life crime in the Bronx; and Harlem Community Justice Center, which aims at providing solutions for neighborhood problems in East and Central Harlem among many others.
The main role of community courts is handling minor offenses such as public drunkenness and other disorderly behaviors by sentencing offenders to social services as well as treatment plans. Community justice systems have assisted many minor offenders escape lives filled with hard drugs or crime by offering them an opportunity for assistance outside jail walls. They take care of social needs for offenders, victims, and communities alike through various social services while effectively tackling underlying issues causing antisocial conduct from offenders.
Community criminal justice plays a significant role in making communities safer by increasing voluntary law-abiding behavior through promoting defendants’ sense of fairness towards their communities. Additionally, community courts produce tangible results like reducing recidivism rates while increasing overall safety within communities along with linking victims with necessary services while rehabilitating offenders.
Reference:
Anderson, D. (1996). In New York City, a Community Court and a New Legal Culture. Retrieved from [insert source here].
On May 7, 2010, I accessed the following document from http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/commcrt.txt:
Clear, T. (2007). Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged.
Neighborhoods Worse
ISBN 0195305795: Oxford University Press US
The Community Court is a program offered by the Center for Court Innovation. The program aims to provide a more community-oriented approach to justice. It focuses on addressing the root causes of criminal behavior and providing support to those who need it most. To learn more about the Community Court, please visit their website.
Source: Center for Court Innovation. (n.d.). Community Court. Retrieved on May 7, 2010 from [insert website URL here].
Visit http://www.courtinnovation.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=570&documentTopicID=17 for more information.
Frazer M. (2006) studied the impact of the community court model on defendant perceptions of fairness.
Retrieved from http://problemsolvingjustice.org/_uploads/documents/ on May 7, 2010.
Procedural Fairness.pdf
Freiberg A. (2002) discusses specialized courts and sentencing in their article. The article can be retrieved from http:// on May 7, 2010.
Visit www.aic.gov.au/criminal_justice_system/courts/~/media/conferences/probation/freiberg.ashx for more information.
Independent Television Service (n.d.) provides information on community courts. The source can be retrieved from their website, accessed on May 7, 2010.
Visit http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/redhookjustice/community.html for more information.
The National Institute of Justice in the United States has established a community court” and a new program in New York City.
Legal Culture Program Focus: U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice
Schmalleger, F. (7th ed., 2003). Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-First Century.
Prentice Hall, ISBN 0130450642, published in the century.
Sviridoff M., Curtis R., and Ostrom B. (2000) explored the implementation of dispensing justice locally.
The Midtown Community Court and Its Effects, ISBN 9057026147, published by Routledge.
White, N., Willensky, E., and Leadon, F. (2010). AIA Guide to New York City. ISBN 0195383869.
Oxford University Press US
