Be their goal social control or due process, law enforcement, the courts, and corrections each face certain problems and challenges. The challenges the courts face are perhaps the most paramount. As interpreters of the law, the courts’ role in the system is pivotal. Therefore, decisions made at the level of the court impact both law enforcement and corrections. Likewise, problems and challenges associated with the courts also impact the effectiveness of the legal enterprise at large. Nevertheless, multi-factor analysis of the court system helps delineate the sources of such issues. Only then can recommendations for future leaders be made.

The problematic challenges the court faces are manifold to start and complicated by political reasoning. As such, only the most overarching issue may be discussed here. The most problematic feature of the judicial system as it is practiced in America is economic. Money, time, people, and materials are all limited resources that the court must balance to serve justice. Unfortunately, because each of these is a zero-sum game, the court becomes stuck in a zero-sum behavior where those who lose most are those with the least resources. The poor and disenfranchised suffer at the hands of the rich and powerful even in court. It happens the super-majority of these cases are African-American and Hispanic men (Mauer & King, 2007). That being said, it is no secret of any honest courtier that he who has the gold makes the rules. It is at once a question of politics and ethics.

To delineate factors that contribute to the resultant problems and challenges is to understand the paradigm of the court ritual itself. In any legal proceeding, there is a prosecutor and a defendant as well as a judge. The role of the prosecutor is to vigorously (and without compunction) seek conviction in every case. The role of the judge is to make decisions based upon law to ensure a fair outcome. The role of the defendant is to cast reasonable doubt upon the case of the prosecution. This is a very basic analysis.

The reality is more complicated. The prosecution usually keeps in place a team of public relations personnel euphemistically called victim advocates. The court has his or her staff along with political specialists euphemistically called friends of the court. The defendant may have either a court appointed attorney or a personally paid lawyer either of which may vary widely in skill and loyalty usually based upon some dollar amount associated with working the case. Often, police agencies and correctional officers (including probation and parole agents) take counsel with the court during proceedings and prior to trial to push for an outcome they see as favorable.

All of a sudden, the defendant’s right to face his or her accuser becomes that of facing the accuser, the accuser’s friends, the prosecutor and the prosecutors friend’s as well as the judge and the judge’s friends. The deck becomes stacked against the defendant, and his or her task now becomes not to simply produce reasonable doubt but to win favor in a decidedly unfavorable environment. Court becomes a sort of lynching party donned in uniforms, neckties, and black robes and the law, the din of the executioner’s song. The scene is confounded further by the fact of ever-changing statutes and inconsistent decisions, so many of which no one person could memorize or keep track of even though ignorance of any one is not an acceptable defense but omission thereof is acceptable to use against a defendant, especially if the defendant is an illiterate minority as statistics demonstrate (Mauer & King, 2007). In the end, it seems the last place a marginalized person would want to turn for justice is the court system.

Unfortunately, that is just the tip of an iceberg of problems our legal system faces, and there are no short-term solutions. What is required is a shift in mentality, a social restructuring that would take a long time to accomplish if it is even achievable. The court must become a place of trust. A place that does not thrive upon adversarial attitudes but a place that is a locus for solving problems (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2008). Only then may we inch our way toward what we profess to hold dear – justice for everyone regardless of social status but especially for those least able to help themselves.