•  
  •  
 

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

Abstract

The criminal justice system is deeply rooted in our history. There are traditional views on how it should be run and conducted. “Founded on the concept that crimes against an individual are crimes against the state, our justice system prosecutes individuals as though they victimized all of society.” Traditionally, when individuals commit a crime, they go through the process of receiving a ticket—or if they commit a particular violent crime they will be immediately arrested—and then they go through the process of appearing in court for an arraignment in which they are “read the charges against [them]” and are either offered an attorney or told to hire an attorney. After that, they will have a case date in which they have to appear in court, and this procedure will continue until they are either offered a plea deal or plead guilty to the charges as outlined and sentenced.

For first-time offenders, this traditional justice system often leads to criminal records which could affect future employment and other opportunities. When someone starts on that road in which they have a record it is very hard for them to get back to a time before they were introduced to the criminal justice system.4 There are restorative justice programs—mostly for juveniles in the criminal justice system, but also treatment courts and adjournments in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) plea options—but similar frameworks can and should be created for adults to help reintegrate them into society. Criminal cases are usually resolved through traditional sanctions set by the justice system. Although new alternatives are emerging, such as diversion programs, diagnostic centers, and mental health or training services, responses remain largely institutional. This may be a long process for a crime that could be as minor as a suspect stealing a t-shirt from a convenience store, or a pack of gum from a 7-Eleven.

Our criminal justice system too often overlooks opportunities for rehabilitation and restorative justice. There have been measures created for dealing with certain kinds of defendants, such as treatment courts, which focus on defendants who are drug users, and this program works to help them get clean in order to get the charges dropped. This Note will explore the potential benefits and challenges of integrating alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for first-time, non-violent offenders. Although there are programs that exist to ensure that non-violent juveniles are awarded a chance to prove themselves, diversion programs for adult non-violent criminal offenders are less common in most states and altogether lacking in others. Specifically, this Note will examine the possibility of offering ADR as an alternative to court proceedings for first-time adult offenders who have committed non-violent crimes, analyze existing programs, discuss their strengths and weaknesses, and explore how they can be improved and broadened to reach a wider audience of defendants.

This Note proceeds in four parts. Part II provides background on the modern criminal justice system, including the definition of first-time offenders, the classification of non-violent offenses, and the traditional adjudicatory process governing misdemeanor and low-level felony cases. Part III examines existing programs within the criminal justice system, such as treatment courts and adjournments in contemplation of dismissal, while also exploring the challenges first-time, non-violent offenders face within the current framework and the collateral consequences that flow from criminal convictions. Finally, Part IV proposes the creation of a pre-court alternative dispute resolution diversion program for first-time, non-violent adult offenders, arguing that such a framework can mitigate the long-term harms of criminal records while promoting accountability, rehabilitation, and reduced system involvement.

Disciplines

Criminal Law | Criminal Procedure | Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | Law | Law and Society

Download

Share

COinS