What Can the American Justice System Learn from European Courts? – Vanderbilt Law School

Report on Reforming the American Criminal Justice System: Emphasizing Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

In Chapter 7 of Rehabilitating Criminal Justice, titled “Borrowing from European Trials,” author Christopher Slobogin critically examines the American adversarial criminal justice system. He identifies inherent weaknesses and proposes a series of inquisitorial-based reforms aimed at enhancing fairness and accuracy. These reforms align with several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) by promoting justice and reducing inequalities within the legal system.

Current Challenges in the American Criminal Justice System

• The adversarial system fosters aggressive competition between prosecution and defense, often resulting in wrongful convictions, acquittals, and punishments.
• Prosecutors and defense attorneys may present biased evidence to secure a “win,” with the prosecution typically having superior resources.
• Such systemic issues undermine the fairness and objectivity of trials, conflicting with SDG 16’s target to promote the rule of law and equal access to justice.

Proposed Inquisitorial-Based Reforms

Slobogin advocates for a hybrid model incorporating key inquisitorial principles to improve objectivity and reduce partisan bias. The three core reforms are:

1. Judicial Control Over Evidence

   • Judges would take a leading role in selecting and questioning witnesses, initiating inquiries based on comprehensive pretrial case files.
   • This approach aims to produce more accurate facts, reduce witness pressure to align with parties, and minimize attorney grandstanding.
   • It rebalances power between the state and defendants, supporting SDG 16 by fostering transparent and accountable institutions.

2. Non-Adversarial Treatment of Experts

   • Greater court involvement in expert witness selection and examination would enhance objectivity.
   • Coaching of expert witnesses by parties would be prohibited to prevent bias.
   • This reform ensures reliable evidence presentation, contributing to SDG 16’s goal of effective, accountable institutions.

3. Unsworn Defendant Testimony

   • Encouraging defendants to testify in their own words without oath, while barring impeachment with prior crimes, contrasts with current restrictive practices.
   • This measure could reduce wrongful convictions and acquittals and improve perceptions of fairness.
   • It supports SDG 16 by enhancing access to justice and fair legal processes for all individuals.

Implementation Considerations and Conclusion

• Slobogin acknowledges challenges in adopting foreign legal practices within the established U.S. system and potential unintended consequences.
• However, he asserts that these reforms comply with U.S. Constitutional law and would significantly improve accuracy and fairness.
• Adopting these reforms aligns with the broader objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 16, by promoting justice, reducing inequalities, and strengthening institutions.

Author and Publication Information

Christopher Slobogin is the Milton R. Underwood Chair in Law and Director of the Criminal Justice Program at Vanderbilt Law. Rehabilitating Criminal Justice is published by Cambridge University Press and is available for order.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article focuses on reforming the criminal justice system to improve fairness, reduce wrongful convictions, and enhance judicial processes, which directly relates to SDG 16’s aim to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable institutions.
2. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • While not explicitly mentioned, reforms promoting fairer trials and reducing bias could contribute indirectly to gender equality by ensuring equal treatment under the law.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. Under SDG 16:
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
2. Under SDG 5 (implied):
   • Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere (implied through fairer judicial processes).

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Indicators for SDG 16 Targets:
   • Indicator 16.3.1: Proportion of victims of violence in the previous 12 months who reported their victimization to competent authorities or officially recognized conflict resolution mechanisms.
   • Indicator 16.3.2: Unsentenced detainees as a proportion of overall prison population (to measure fairness and efficiency in justice systems).
   • Indicator 16.6.1: Primary government expenditures as a proportion of original approved budget, by sector (to assess accountability and transparency).
   • Indicator 16.7.1: Proportions of positions in national and local institutions, including the judiciary, held by members of marginalized groups (to assess inclusivity and representation).
2. Implied Indicators:
   • Rates of wrongful convictions and acquittals (implied as measures of justice system accuracy and fairness).
   • Judicial involvement in evidence and expert witness examination (process indicators for judicial control and impartiality).
   • Defendant testimony rates and their impact on trial outcomes (to measure inclusiveness and fairness).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: law.vanderbilt.edu