Judicial outreach initiatives.

• Author: McBeth, Veronica S.
• Position: Public Understanding and Perceptions of the American Justice System

These remarks address judicial outreach initiatives, specifically what courts have done and are doing in this area, what research has been conducted, what action programs have been initiated and what we in the court system have learned from these endeavors. I will be examining efforts made primarily by judges and courts to educate the public about the court system and how those efforts create the opportunity for two-way communications between the court and the public. Though I will refer to some programs that have been implemented in judicial districts throughout the country, I will focus primarily on the efforts currently taking place in California to institutionalize community outreach and court/community collaborative efforts into the life of the court.(1)

I have been involved in these kinds of projects throughout the seventeen years that I have served on the bench. I have served as Chair of my own court's Courts and the Public Committee, and I currently serve as a Chair of the California Judicial Council's Special Task Force on Court/Community Outreach which was established by our state's Chief Justice in May 1997 and as Co-Chair of our Community Focused Strategic Planning Implementation Committee.

Community outreach by judges is not a recent phenomenon.(2) For many years, across the nation, there have been judges who have recognized the importance of these kinds of endeavors.(3) They saw the necessity for such efforts, and they held the belief that the judicial branch of government could and should commit our limited resources to them.(4) These judges recognize that we receive respect from the public and that many hold us in high esteem as highly qualified and wise public officials.(5) However, we also recognize that we cannot be sanguine about the public's perception of judges.(6) We see from past surveys and from the results presented at this conference that although judges may be held in higher esteem than some others involved in the justice system, a thirty-two percent confidence rating certainly is not anything to write home about. We found that in both California and national surveys of public attitudes and perceptions of the justice system that there are widely held beliefs that the court system may strive to be fair but sometimes is not. Additionally, the perception of the justice system is that it favors the wealthy and well-connected over the less wealthy and disadvantaged.(7) Although we may believe them to be unfair, unfounded, or based on ignorance, we also find that many of these beliefs are validated by our own experience. Some believe that judges are soft on crime, do not work hard, and that there is unequal justice for ethnic and cultural minorities and women. The suspicion about the court and government authority may also be carried over by the new arrivals to our nation who may have left repressive political and judicial regimes.(8) Additionally, there are crises in perceptions brought on by sensationalized trials and the occasional incidents of judicial misconduct that tend to color the way the public views all of the judiciary.(9) The existence of these beliefs were found in California surveys attendant to our 2020 Commission Report.

Although I recognize the problems inherent in anecdotal evidence, I have seen these views exhibited in my own personal experience as well. Most notably, some years ago, I sentenced a wealthy landlord to live in his own apartment building, and apparently that was the first time such a sentence had been imposed.(10) I received over 400 letters from practically every state of the union, and there were editorials in all the major newspapers in the United States.(11) The one comment that was consistent in the letters and editorials was how great it was to see a wealthy individual finally being held accountable by the court.(12) These widespread attitudes and perceptions have been presented and still may be open to debate. The conclusion that we can draw from the surveys is that while many people continue to hold judges in high esteem, it is also clear that the belief that our government operates with the presumption of innocence and good will essentially has disappeared and, as a result, negative perceptions and misperceptions based on ignorance will not disappear as long as the judiciary chooses to ignore them.(13) In the long run, compliance with the law is dependent in some degree upon public respect for the court.(14) The effectiveness of the judiciary is dependent to some degree upon the public's perception that we are honest, hard working, and that we are fulfilling our goal of resolving disputes.(15)

I believe, as do many of my colleagues across the country, that the judiciary must take an active role in enhancing the public's perception about the court system.(16) We must show them that we deserve their trust and support. Judges must continue to work with the organized bar in maintaining healthy perceptions and disarming negative perceptions, and the recent survey seems to support the notion, that judges should play a prominent and significant role in establishing an ongoing court/community dialogue.(17) This is an essential element of our strategy to maintain the vitality of the trial courts and the effectiveness of the judicial branch as an institution. Public understanding will lead to public confidence in the trial courts.(18) But how do we inform the public that our system is worthy of their confidence and support when they do not have contact with judges or with the justice system, and they lack an understanding of our place in the scheme of our government? These are the questions that we sought to answer in the work of the Special Task Force on Court/Community Outreach ("Task Force").(19)

The Task Force began its work with the premise that the courts must "seek to provide improved services to the users of the justice system and that courts renew their traditional position of leadership within their communities.... Historically, the courts have been recognized as relevant to the lives of the people they serve."(20) We wanted to "reclaim that respected role," and we decided that the courts needed to "take action in two broad areas: (1) courts should open avenues of communication with the public through which the courts truly `listen' [to the concerns and problems of those we serve], and (2) courts should actively engage in public education about the role and operations of the courts."(21) In other words, we believed that it would be necessary for judges to take off their robes, come down from the bench and go out into the community and to find ways to bring members of the community into the courthouse.

There are those who question the premise that historically and traditionally judges were seen as part of the community and that courts were perceived as relevant to the lives of the people. The authority for that position can be found in The Federalist Papers No. 17 wherein Alexander Hamilton observed, "[t]he ordinary administration of criminal and civil justice ... contributes more than any other circumstance to impressing upon the minds of the people affection, esteem and reverence towards the government."(22) This powerful observation has guided me throughout my career on the bench, and it has served to guide the work of the Task Force. We are reminded always that while the public may revere and hold us in high esteem, they will not have affection for a judiciary that is aloof and isolated from the communities we serve. Misperceptions and misunderstandings of the justice system can engender disrespect, erode confidence, and undermine public support not only for the courts, but also for our system of government in general.(23)

The Task Force membership was comprised of judges (presiding, juvenile, appellate, superior, municipal, and federal), court administrators, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and members of the private bar.(24) But unique to the California Task Force is that one-third of the membership is comprised of non-judicial, non-legal members of the public.(25) There were representatives from the Department of Social Services, the school system, the business community as represented by the California Chamber of Commerce, the National Indian Justice Center, the NAACP, the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, the League of Women Voters, and the Coalition for Justice.(26) The group was a microcosm of the racial, ethnic, and cultural mix that constitutes modern California.

The first order of business for the Task Force was to assess the level of public trust and confidence in the courts.(27) Since these issues had been previously documented at both state and national levels over the past twenty-five years, we chose not to conduct additional surveys but to review the prior resources and then focus on identifying effective programs and the need of California's courts to initiate, maintain, and enhance these effective community outreach efforts.

After a review of thirteen state and national surveys, we concluded the following:

* That there was a low overall opinion of the court system.(28)

* That there was a perception of bias within the court system, specifically with regard to race, income and gender.(29)

* That there was a declining level of confidence in the court system.(30)

* That there was limited familiarity with the court system.(31)

The second task was to survey existing outreach programs nationally and in California.(32) Following this review, we attempted to identify areas of needed court/community outreach and potential partners.

The third area was to identify any applicable ethical constraints.(33)

Fourth, we sought to identify the role of the California Judicial Council ("Judicial Council") and the Administrative Office of the Courts.(34) Next, we developed recommendations for standards of judicial administration, rules of court and other guidelines and produced a handbook entitled, Dialogue: Courts Reaching Out...