Data, ie figures and stats, on a country’s justice system are rarely to be found in one place. The police have theirs, the courts theirs, oh and prisons have theirs (as do probation, prosecution, legal aid and sundry others). Each holds their data closely to their chests because each views itself as an institution that stands alone, rather than a cog in a wheel, or link in a chain, or as just part of a system.
However, when invited to share data, the response can be surprisingly positive, especially if you hand over the controls and explain the purpose: to collect and visualize data across the justice system to show what is actually happening and how the system is (or is not) functioning. They get that.
Justice practitioners are fed up with working in a broken system. They want the wheels of justice to turn. Many also ‘get’ that information about human and material resources and infrastructure boost their chances of getting a larger budget next time.
They also know something has to be done about the caseload and that the delays in police investigation and court hearings, as well as overcrowding in prisons have reached critical mass. They realise the situation is unsustainable and that rule by law is at risk of collapsing under the weight of numbers and growing public distrust.
And this is worrying governments too.
There are few countries where criminal justice systems are not under pressure. Some governments respond by institutionalizing ‘special’ courts and procedures to fast-track cases which the public feel strongly about. But they soon get stuck in procedural weeds and institutional inertia and go the way of the rest.
Others by ‘digitising’ their systems, offer quick and virtual justice (trial by ATM).
Still others by changing names (from prison to corrections, from police force to police service) as if by isomorphic mimicry they can, at least, seem to be what they are not. Reforms are haphazard and potluck. Some take and have an impact, most do not.
Justice reform is a complex project. Compare with engineering, say, both may agree the same strategy, ie, to get from A to Z. The engineering team will assess the line the track will take, agree how much to lay by when and how much it will cost. The justice team–assuming it can agree on membership–will dispute the direction, fail to agree on timing and prove hopeless on providing a cost.
Or compare with the health sector which long ago realized public health services needed to focus on the community and services people needed and so trained up an army of nurses, paramedics and primary health care workers to provide routine and simple or minor healthcare services, rather than get people to visit the doctor or hospital.
Most people in most countries have no access to these primary legal services and still have to go (at great expense) to the lawyer (doctor) and court (hospital).
Justice does not lend itself readily to science, but it does respect evidence.
Justice Audits collect evidence from across the system to render a ‘diagnosis’ of the justice body: identifying the blockages, internal bleeding and diseases; and where a limb is healthy and strong. These institutional data can be triangulated with survey and observational data to give a pretty accurate picture of how the justice system in a country is standing and what the prognosis might be going forward. Get it?
Adam Stapleton