Embargoed for Release - Wednesday, February 24, 1999

Perceptions of the U.S. Justice System
Executive Summary

The American Bar Association commissioned a national survey to: (1) assess the public's current understanding of and confidence in the justice system; (2) identify the public's sources of information about the justice system; and (3) understand what factors drive public attitudes. The survey, which included 1,000 randomly selected respondents age 18 and older, was conducted by telephone interviews between August 6 and August 31 of 1998 by M/A/R/C ® Research, an independent Chicago research firm.

Respondents were asked to: (1) self rate their perceived knowledge; (2) answer a series of factual questions about the justice system; (3) define their confidence in a variety of institutions and professions; (4) rate 50 attitude statements; (5) identify current and preferred information sources; (6) discuss past experience with the justice system; and (7) provide suggestions for improving the administration of justice.

Some of the key findings of this study include the following:

• People strongly believe in the justice system, though they also identify areas that warrant improvement.

• People have confidence in the overall justice system, though the amount of that confidence varies for specific components of the system. Further, that confidence can be influenced over time and by level of knowledge, positive court experience, and personal demographic traits.

• People's knowledge of the justice system is uneven. They recognize some obscure tenets but still lack knowledge about more basic ones.

• Certain attitudes can influence people's confidence in the justice system. There are some confidence drivers that already show quite positive public attitudes. These attitudes should be maintained and strengthened. There are other areas that also influence confidence, but currently show more negative attitudes. These negative attitudes that work against confidence need to be addressed as areas for improveme

I. Strong Support for the American Justice System

A. Confidence in the American justice system overall
At least conceptually, there is strong support for the justice system. The data indicate that 80% of all respondents either strongly agree or agree, based on a 5-point scale, that "in spite of its problems, the American justice system is still the best in the world." Further, the root of this support seems to lie in the jury system, as more than three-quarters, 78%, say it is the fairest way to determine guilt or innocence, and more than two-thirds, 69%, believe that juries are the most important part of our justice system.

B. Confidence in the justice system, its individual components, and other U.S. institutions
Confidence in the justice system was also measured in relation to confidence in component parts of the justice system, and in relation to confidence in other U.S. institutions. Specifically, respondents were asked to rate their confidence in seventeen different institutions in American society, including the overall justice system, particular components of the justice system, other professions and institutions, and the media.

Respondents have the most confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court, with 50% showing strong confidence in this institution and only 15% having slight or no confidence in it. Confidence in other federal courts, in judges, and in the justice system overall is not as strong, with about a third of the respondents extremely or very confident in each institution. Strong confidence in the U.S. Congress is shown by only 18% of the respondents. Strong confidence in lawyers is shown only by 14% of the respondents. The media fared the worst, with strong confidence from only 8% of the respondents and slight or no confidence from 60% of the respondents. This suggests that while a clear majority believes in the justice system there is wide variation in how much confidence people have in the specific institutions that comprise it.

C. Variations in confidence by type of respondent
The current study identified variations in confidence by type of respondent. It found that those with more knowledge have more confidence in the system; that those who have had positive court experiences also tend to have more confidence in the system; and that males, people with higher incomes and higher levels of education are more confident than other demographic groups.

D. Confidence Levels: 1978 vs. 1998
Respondents were asked the same questions about confidence in the 1978 Yankelovich study, which allows us to assess changes in confidence over the past 20 years. Confidence in some key components of the justice system showed significant increases since the Yankelovich study was conducted. The levels of confidence in all kinds of courts—the U.S. Supreme Court, other federal courts, and state and local courts—have increased. Confidence in the local police also increased significantly. On the other hand, confidence in doctors, organized religion, public schools, the U.S. Congress, and, most notably, the media decreased.

E. Influence of knowledge and court experience on confidence
One of the key conclusions of the Yankelovich study, which became the basis for many programs, was, "Those having knowledge and experience with the court voice the greatest dissatisfaction and criticism." But the current study, along with other research, refutes that conclusion. Specifically, it reveals that the more knowledge people have about the justice system the greater their confidence in the justice system overall as well as in a whole host of its components. In all of the cases identified, people with greater knowledge have significantly more confidence in the justice system than do those with lower levels of knowledge. ("Levels of knowledge" refers to factual information about the courts and the justice system.) Further, people with positive court experiences were also more likely to have greater confidence in the justice system than those who had negative court experiences. There are significant differences in confidence for all parts of the system, except that few people, regardless of experience, have confidence in lawyers and the legal profession.

The findings from this research are supported by a number of studies cited in a recent article from Judicature, titled "Familiarity Breeds Respect: How Wisconsin Citizens View Their Courts," Volume 82, Number 2, September/October 1998, page 58. In particular, a Wisconsin study found that general support for the justice system went up in response to specific positive experiences and down in response to specific negative experiences. A 1992 study conducted in Virginia had similar results, showing that respondents who had more recent court experiences had more positive perceptions of the courts and of the justice system’s performance than did those respondents who had no court experience.

The present study found that if people have good court experiences, their feelings did not change; basically, they still felt good about the courts. In fact, 82% of the people did not change their perceptions of the justice system. However, if people’s most recent court experience was negative, their perceptions either stayed the same or changed negatively. This suggests that improving people’s perceptions of the justice system through court experience alone may prove a difficult task. Those with positive experiences are probably not going to improve their perceptions but those with negative experiences have a good chance of becoming even more negative.

The current study also considered whether people’s confidence was affected by how removed in time they were from their court experience. No effect was found; regardless of whether a person’s experience was less than a year ago, or at least one year ago, the levels of confidence were the same.

Thus, this research concludes that knowledge and experience do influence a person’s confidence in the justice system, and that, contrary to the Yankelovich study, those having more knowledge and those having positive court experiences are more satisfied and less critical of the system. Indeed, in the previously cited article from Judicature, Herbert Kritzer, professor and chair of political science and professor of law at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and John Voelker, assistant to the chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, found after reanalyzing the Yankelovich data, that "It is not clear that the linkage described twenty years ago actually existed." A re-analysis of the data does not show statistical evidence to support the Yankelovich conclusion.

F. Demographic characteristics of people with the most confidence in the justice system overall

In addition to tracking confidence by knowledge and court experiences, the study looked for the demographic characteristics of people with the most confidence in the justice system. It found that they are more likely to be men, those who have higher incomes, those who are more educated, and those who have positive litigant and juror experience.

Further, there are no consistent differences in confidence along ethnic lines. About the same number of whites and non-whites are extremely or very confident in the overall justice system. The definition of non-white includes African Americans, Hispanics, Asians and others. In spite of a large total sample, 1,000 respondents, there are not enough people to break out separately most of the ethnic groups. Therefore, they are grouped together, with African Americans making up the majority of non-whites.

It should be noted, however, that while overall confidence in the justice system shows no consistent patterns based on race/ethnicity, specific attitudes toward the system do vary between whites and non-whites, with whites holding more positive attitudes in many areas, particularly those that relate to equality of treatment.

II. People’s Knowledge of the Justice System

In order to measure knowledge of the justice system, respondents were asked a series of seventeen questions to identify:

- The three branches of government

- The function of each branch

- The U.S. Chief Justice

- The accuracy of ten statements pertaining to the function of courts.

A. Unevenness of people’s knowledge of the system
The data from this study indicate that people’s knowledge of the justice system is quite uneven. On the one hand, there is some information that virtually all people know. For example, 99% know one of the basic tenets of our system—that anyone accused of a crime has the right to be represented in court by a lawyer; and 96% know the relatively obscure concept that a defendant who is found "not guilty" in a criminal trial can still be sued in a civil trial. (One could hypothesize that people learned this information from the widespread media coverage of the O.J. Simpson trials.) On the other hand, fewer people—two-thirds—know another of our system’s most basic tenets, that a criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty. This means, astonishingly, a third of the respondents believe that the defendant must prove innocence rather than that the prosecutor must prove guilt.

Respondents were asked, in two stages, about the branches of government. First, they were asked on an unaided basis to identify the three branches of government. Only 39% could identify all three and a quarter of the respondents could not identify any of the branches of government. This was surprising since the three branches of government are taught in basic civics and government classes and at least one, if not all, are frequently in the news. It should also be noted that the definition of a correct identification was quite liberal: a person could say the "President," the "Supreme Court," or the "House of Representatives" and be classified as correctly identifying a branch. Most people were aware of the judicial and legislative branches, with about two-thirds mentioning each individually, while half identified the executive branch.

After this question, respondents were told the three branches of government and were asked whether the function of each was to make laws, interpret laws or enforce laws. Again, there was only fair knowledge of basic tenets. While most people understood that the legislature makes laws, there was some confusion about the functions of the judicial and executive branches. While about half knew the judicial branch interprets laws, just as many thought its function was to enforce laws. Likewise, while almost half correctly answered that the executive branch enforces laws, some thought it makes laws and some thought it interprets laws. Further, very few people, 17%, could identify William Rehnquist as the United States Chief Justice. An equal number wrongly answered the question, and most, 67%, indicated that they simply did not know. (Given Chief Justice Rehnquist’s recent media exposure in the Senate impeachment trial, however, a survey conducted today might well yield different results.)

When one considers the varying degrees of knowledge across all the questions asked, only 26% of the total sample can be considered highly knowledgeable about the justice system. That means only 26% of the people answered thirteen to seventeen of the questions correctly. Just as many people, 24%, were found to have a low level of knowledge, answering at most only seven questions correctly. Though everyone answered at least one question correctly, one person answered only one correctly.

Further, it was not surprising to find that people who are most knowledgeable are those who have the most confidence in the justice system. They tend to be white, middle-aged, male, more educated, and with higher incomes. In addition, they are more likely to have had experience with the justice system either with lawyers or through litigation.

B. Demographic differences in levels of knowledge
Looking at the data in more detail, significant differences are apparent between whites and non-whites, between men and women, among those 35 to 54 years old and based on whether or not a person had experience with lawyers and litigation. The most dramatic differences lie in the levels of education and income. Those with post graduate degrees, and those who earn more than $75,000 a year are much more likely than others to be knowledgeable about the justice system.

C. Sources of people’s knowledge, by relative importance
When asked where they get their knowledge, most people name school – grade school, high school and, to a lesser extent, college. A substantial number of people, 67%, also say they get their knowledge through personal experience. When respondents were asked about the importance of a variety of information sources, they identified personal experience, schools, and libraries as the most important. Jury duty also is considered important by more than half the people as one form of personal experience. At the other extreme, all forms of media or entertainment, such as movies, videos, television dramas, court programs such as People’s Court or Judge Judy, are considered the least important information sources.

When people’s rankings of the various sources of information are analyzed in relation to their level of knowledge about the justice system, some interesting differences emerge. Personal experience, schools, books, jury duty and attorneys are equally important to all people. However, all forms of media, such as television news, local newspapers, radio news and even television dramas are significantly more important to people with less knowledge than to people with more knowledge. This clearly suggests that the media can and do impact some people’s knowledge base.

Finally, people were asked from whom they want to learn about the justice system. They want to learn from the people who are involved in it and whom they consider most important – current and retired judges and educators. While a little more than half the people want to learn about the justice system from lawyers, this is relatively low compared to the 75% who said they wanted to learn from judges.

While it may be that people view judges as credible information sources, most people, 51%, do not agree that judges are not paid enough. However, most, 54%, do agree that they are extremely well qualified for their jobs. And while most believe that judges contribute to their communities, about a third believe judges do not contribute enough. Education programs involving judges would be a way to improve people’s knowledge of the system and promote judges’ civic-mindedness.

III. Attitudes That Drive Confidence in the System

The study identified several attitudinal areas that correlate strongly with confidence in the system (or lack there of). Some of these areas already exhibit quite positive public attitudes, which should be maintained. Other attitude areas are strongly correlated with confidence, but currently show more negative attitudes, which in turn diminish confidence in the system. These negative attitudes represent areas for improvement.

A. Attitudes to be maintained
There are three attitudinal areas that should be maintained. These are respondents’ beliefs that: 1) Our justice system is the best in the world, and juries are the fairest way to judge guilt or innocence; 2) court personnel know their jobs and are courteous and polite; and 3) most people have easy access to legal services and lawyers.

B. Attitudes to be addressed—areas for improvement
On the other hand, there are attitudes that need to be addressed. Respondents believe that court costs are too high; that court matters take too long to resolve; that certain groups are not treated fairly in court; that judges and lawyers should perform more community service. There is also room for improvement in their perception of lawyers. Each of these will be discussed individually below.

Respondents were asked whether tax dollars should be used for various programs identified by the ABA as possible improvements to the justice system. Almost all respondents felt tax dollars should be spent for educational programs about the various branches of government and the justice system. They also supported, but to a lesser degree, programs that would make the courts easier to use, such as the hiring of translators.

1. Court costs, duration
Most people, 69%, believe that it is easy to find a lawyer, if needed, and more than half, 54%, believe legal services and courts are easy to access. But three-quarters of the people believe it takes too long to go to court and it costs too much. It is important to change the view that the judicial system is too laborious and costs too much.

2. Lawyers
It also is important to work to improve people’s perceptions of lawyers, which vary based on their own experiences. If their experience was positive, they are more likely to have positive perceptions of lawyers. If their experience was negative, they are more likely to have negative perceptions. Further, lawyers are often perceived to be more concerned about their own interests than the public’s or the clients’. Finally, lawyers are not considered as civic-minded as judges, and as a result, people do not have much confidence in them.

3. Equality of treatment
A substantial number of people believe that the justice system treats different groups of people unequally. Only about half of the respondents agree that men and women are treated equally; even fewer believe that among racial or ethnic groups or between wealthy and poor people the treatment is equal. In fact, if the data are analyzed by sub-groups, those differences become even more pronounced. People who are less likely to agree that sub-groups are treated equally include women, non-whites, those with lower incomes and less education and those with negative court experiences. These people are the mirror images of those who are more knowledgeable and have more confidence in the justice system – more educated, higher income, white males. Men are more likely and women are less likely to agree that the system treats men and women equally; whites are more likely and non-whites are less likely to agree that the system treats different racial and ethnic groups the same; likewise for the statements about income. This suggests that perceived inequalities still exist. Given this issue’s influence on people’s confidence, it sorely needs to be addressed.

An important parallel to these results can be seen in the February 1999 issue of the ABA Journal entitled "Race and the Law." In a collaborative effort, the ABA Journal and the National Bar Association Magazine polled 477 white lawyers, 489 black lawyers and 35 lawyers of other ethnic backgrounds. The purposes of this research were to identify lawyers’ perceptions of the justice system and to understand what difference of perception may exist based on race. The study found that perceptions of racism in the justice system among lawyers of different races are similar to the perceptions among the general population we have discussed above. In some cases, the differences are even larger. It is thus imperative that the issue of inequality be addressed in society as a whole as well as within the legal profession.

4. Lenience in sentencing
Anywhere from one half to three-quarters of respondents feel that convicted criminals have too many opportunities to appeal (72%), that they are set free on too many technicalities (68%), and that they are not given severe enough punishment (52%). On the other hand, more than half, 56%, favor alternative sentencing, such as community service, over jail time.

IV. Conclusion

This study clearly shows that there is strong support for and a firm belief in the justice system. Additionally, it identifies several ways of increasing confidence in the system: through education, to improve people’s current uneven knowledge of the system; through actual court experiences; and through focusing on key attitudes that drive confidence among targeted demographic groups.