American Bar Assoication Report on Perceptions of the U.S. Justice System.

• Author: Anderson, Philip S.
• Position: Follows opening remarks - Public Understanding and Perceptions of the American Justice System

I. BACKGROUND

The American Bar Association sponsored a comprehensive nationwide survey among the general population on the United States justice system. The following textual and graphical materials are a condensed version of the results of that survey. The findings were presented at the ABA symposium entitled Public Understanding and Perceptions of the American Justice System held in Washington, D.C., on February 25-26, 1999. Participants at the symposium included educators, members of the judiciary and the organized bar, members of the media, and representatives of community organizations. Part of the discussion at the symposium focused on people's perceptions of the current state of the justice system and what needs to be done to continue to instill confidence in it. The findings from this research were used as stimuli for that discussion and, subsequently, will be published and distributed to: U.S. boards of education, colleges with teacher training programs, chief justices of state supreme courts, federal judges, local bar association leadership members, editorial boards, and education reporters.

II. METHODOLOGY

The questionnaire was developed based on measures from previous research over the past twenty years sponsored by the United States government and corporations. Minor wording changes were made based on the objectives of this study, and some new questions were added. Where possible, direct comparisons are made to previous findings. Two pre-tests helped refine the attitude statements and the overall questionnaire. Input was also solicited from the ABA planning committee for Symposium II: Public Understanding and Perceptions of the American Justice System.

The first pre-test consisted of fifty in-person interviews. A factor analysis was conducted on the attitude statements to reduce the number of statements by determining which measures were most discriminating.

A revised questionnaire was reviewed by the ABA member-based Steering Committee, which determined that a second pre-test of the attitude statements should be conducted.

The second pre-test focused only on the attitude statements and on one new question regarding improvement of the justice system. It was conducted among fifty respondents via telephone interviews. The attitude statements were again factor analyzed. The results from both pre-tests were synthesized to derive the final set of attitude statements.

III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The American Bar Association commissioned a national survey to: (1) assess the public's current understanding of and confidence in the justice system; (2) identify the public's sources of information about the justice system; and (3) understand what factors drive public attitudes. The survey, which included 1000 randomly selected respondents age 18 and older, was conducted by telephone interviews between August 6 and August 31, 1998 by M/A/R/C[R] Research, an independent Chicago research firm.

Respondents were asked to: (1) self rate their perceived knowledge; (2) answer a series of factual questions about the justice system; (3) define their confidence in a variety of institutions and professions; (4) rate fifty attitude statements; (5) identify current and preferred information sources; (6) discuss past experience with the justice system; and (7) provide suggestions for improving the administration of justice.

Some of the key findings of this study include the following:

* People strongly believe in the justice system, though they also identify areas that warrant improvement.

* People have confidence in the overall justice system, though the amount of that confidence varies for specific components of the system. Further, that confidence can be influenced over time and by level of knowledge, positive court experience, and personal demographic traits.

* People's knowledge of the justice system is uneven. They recognize some obscure tenets but still lack knowledge about more basic ones.

Certain attitudes can influence people's confidence in the justice system. There are some confidence drivers that already show quite positive public attitudes. These attitudes should be maintained and strengthened. There are other areas that also influence confidence, but currently show more negative attitudes. These negative attitudes that work against confidence need to be addressed as areas for improvement.

A. Strong Support for the American Justice System

1. Confidence in the American Justice System Overall

   At least conceptually, there is strong support for the justice system. The data indicate that 80% of all respondents either strongly agree or agree, based on a 5-point scale, that "in spite of its problems, the American justice system is still the best in the world." Further, the root of this support seems to lie in the jury system, as more than three-quarters, 78%, say it is the fairest way to determine guilt or innocence, and more than two-thirds, 69%, believe that juries are the most important part of our justice system.

2. Confidence in the Justice System, Its Individual Components, and Other U.S. Institutions

   Confidence in the justice system was also measured in relation to confidence in component parts of the justice system, and in relation to confidence in other U.S. institutions. Specifically, respondents were asked to rate their confidence in seventeen different institutions in American society, including the overall justice system, particular components of the justice system, other professions and institutions, and the media.

   Respondents have the most confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court, with 50% showing strong confidence in this institution and only 15% having slight or no confidence in it. Confidence in other federal courts, in judges, and in the justice system overall is not as strong, with about a third of the respondents extremely or very confident in each institution. Strong confidence in the U.S. Congress is shown by only 18% of the respondents. Strong confidence in lawyers is shown only by 14% of the respondents. The media fared the worst, with strong confidence from only 8% of the respondents and slight or no confidence from 60% of the respondents. This suggests that while a clear majority believes in the justice system there is wide variation in how much confidence people have in the specific institutions that comprise it.

3. Variations in Confidence by Type of Respondent

   The current study identified variations in confidence by type of respondent. It found that those with more knowledge have more confidence in the system; that those who have had positive court experiences also tend to have more confidence in the system; and that males, people with higher incomes and higher levels of education are more confident than other demographic groups.

4. Confidence Levels: 1978 vs. 1998

   Respondents were asked the same questions about confidence in the 1978 Yankelovich study,(1) which allows us to assess changes in confidence over the past twenty years. Confidence in some key components of the justice system showed significant increases since the Yankelovich study was conducted. The levels of confidence in all kinds of courts--the U.S. Supreme Court, other federal courts, and state and local courts--have increased. Confidence in the local police also increased significantly. On the other hand, confidence in doctors, organized religion, public schools, the U.S. Congress, and, most notably, the media decreased.

5. Influence of Knowledge and Court Experience on Confidence

   One of the key conclusions of the Yankelovich study, which became the basis for many programs, was, "those having knowledge and experience with courts voice greatest dissatisfaction and criticism."(2) But the current study, along with other research, refutes that conclusion. Specifically, it reveals that the more knowledge people have about the justice system the greater their confidence in the justice system overall as well as in a whole host of its components. In all of the cases identified, people with greater knowledge have significantly more confidence in the justice system than do those with lower levels of knowledge. ("Levels of knowledge" refers to factual information about the courts and the justice system.) Further, people with positive court experiences were also more likely to have greater confidence in the justice system than those who had negative court experiences. There are significant differences in confidence for all parts of the system, except that few people, regardless of experience, have confidence in lawyers and the legal profession.

   The findings from this research are supported by a number of studies cited in a recent article from Judicature.(3) In particular, a Wisconsin study found that general support for the justice system went up in response to specific positive experiences and down in response to specific negative experiences.(4) A 1992 study conducted in Virginia had similar results, showing that respondents who had more recent court experiences had more positive perceptions of the courts and of the justice system's performance than did those respondents who had no court experience.(5)

   The present study found that if people have good court experiences, their feelings did not change; basically, they still felt good about the courts. In fact, 82% of the people did not change their perceptions of the justice system. However, if people's most recent court experience was negative, their perceptions either stayed the same or changed negatively. This suggests that improving people's perceptions of the justice system through court experience alone may prove a difficult task. Those with positive experiences are probably not going to improve their perceptions but those with negative experiences have a good chance of becoming even more negative.

   The current study also considered whether people's confidence was affected by how removed in time they were from their court experience. No effect was found; regardless of whether...