Does Reducing Case Processing Time Reduce Recidivism? A Study of the Early Case Resolution Court

• DOI: 10.1177/0887403418789465
• Published date: 01 February 2020
• Date: 01 February 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403418789465

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2020, Vol. 31(1) 22 –41

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403418789465

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Does Reducing Case

Processing Time Reduce

Recidivism? A Study of the

Early Case Resolution Court

Rob Butters1, Kort Prince1, Allyson Walker1,

Erin B. Worwood1, and Christian M. Sarver1

Abstract

Case processing times throughout the United States exceed national standards created

by multiple agencies. To combat this, multiple expedited case processing courts have

been developed across the nation; however, research regarding these courts has failed

to consider recidivism outcomes among participants. We examined the outcomes of

a specialized court in the Salt Lake City Third District Court called the Early Case

Resolution (ECR) Court, a program aimed at reducing both case processing times

and recidivism. Using a propensity score-matched sample, we utilized survival analysis

to look at participants’ time to recidivism. While case processing times were lower

for the ECR Court participants than non-ECR participants, recidivism among ECR

Court participants was significantly higher. Results from this study show that using

recidivism as an outcome measure for expedited case processing courts is necessary

in evaluations of these programs.

Keywords

recidivism, research and policy, deterrence, program evaluation

In 2011, Salt Lake County, UT, decided its court system needed a change. Faced

with slow case processing times and a growing backlog of cases in its Third District

Court, the county implemented a new program, known as Early Case Resolution

(ECR) Court. This program was designed to divert misdemeanor and lower level

1The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA

Corresponding Author:

Rob Butters, The University of Utah, 395 South 1500 East #111, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.

Email: rob.butters@socwk.utah.edu

789465CJPXXX10.1177/0887403418789465Criminal Justice Policy ReviewButters et al.

research-article2018

Butters et al. 23

felony cases into a new court that would utilize a separate team of counsel, judges,

and case managers to provide more immediate case review and faster dispositions.

The rationale behind this program was that misdemeanor and lower level felony

cases tie up the system, and disposing of these cases faster would allow for court

resources to be utilized where they were more needed. Among the goals for the

program were (a) accelerating case processing times within among ECR partici-

pants and (b) reducing recidivism.

In this article, the authors consider the effects of the ECR Court; specifically, the

Court’s effects on speed of case processing and on recidivism. We present a theoretical

argument for why accelerating case processing may reduce recidivism, and then pres-

ent research regarding ECR and other specialized courts aimed at accelerating case

processing. We then explore the effects of the ECR Court using a propensity score-

matched sample of ECR participants and non-ECR defendants within the Third District

Court. Employing survival analysis, we examine the time to rearrest between these

two groups. Discussion of the results, as well as the implications for policy, follow.

The Speedy Trial

The provision of a speedy trial is a right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the

U.S. Constitution to any U.S. citizen prosecuted for a crime. Numerous other pieces of

legislation and Supreme Court decisions have upheld and clarified this right, as well.

The provision of a speedy trial is meant to accomplish several goals, including reduc-

ing recidivism. Case processing time has long been theorized to affect the likelihood

that an individual will reoffend. We now explore this theory, as well as national efforts

to accelerate the speed of case processing within criminal courts.

Deterrence Theory

Deterrence theory provides a key motivation behind increasing the speed of case pro-

cessing. Beccaria (1764/1986) and Bentham (1830) long ago theorized that punish-

ment deters future criminal behavior only if the penalty is swift, certain, and

proportionately severe for the crime. This theory of deterrence has guided criminal

justice research, policy, and practice since the publication of Beccaria’s treatise, which

upheld swiftness (or celerity) and certainty as the most important facets of a punish-

ment. These are meant to ensure that those who have previously committed a crime are

subsequently deterred from committing future crimes (specific deterrence), as well as

to ensure that those within the general population are deterred from offending, by see-

ing the consequences of an example (general deterrence).

Beccaria (1764/1986) established the idea that

an immediate punishment is more useful; because the smaller the interval of time between

the punishment and the crime, the stronger and more lasting will be the association of the

two ideas of Crime and Punishment; so that they may be considered, one as the cause, and

the other as the unavoidable and necessary effect. (p. 62, emphasis in the original)