Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Testing the Packer Theorem: The Efficiency of Florida’s Criminal Circuit Courts

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Herbert Packer’s models of the criminal process are criminal justice theorems, often the foundation of student introduction to the field in introductory textbooks. To date, there is little empirical analysis of the conceptual foundations of the process-based models, namely that courts are more efficient through the utilization of plea bargains, while an increase in trials necessarily decreases efficiency. The present results reveal wide variability in Florida circuit criminal court efficiency within and between circuits from 2004/05 to 2010/11. Regression analysis revealed that the year over year difference in both plea bargain (β = .14) and trial percentage (β = .13) significantly predicted (p < .05) year over year changes in efficiency, but explained a small amount of the variance (R 2 = .026) controlling for other factors (total model R 2 = .58–.62). These results show there is more capacity for trials within the Florida courts, and an increase in trials does not negatively impact court efficiency as expected but that other factors are far more relevant in explaining changes in efficiency outcomes. Furthermore, the Packer “assembly line” analogy, a basic tenet of the criminal process, is not found: plea bargains do not strongly predict or explain court efficiency, with structures playing a greater role in court outcomes than the processes conceptualized by Packer. The application to courts and impact on criminal justice education are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albanese, J. S. (2012). Criminal justice (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alschuler, A. W. (1983). Implementing the criminal defendant’s right to trial: alternatives to the plea bargaining system. The University of Chicago Law Review, 50(3), 931–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Athanassopoulos, A. D., & Curram, S. P. (1996). A comparison of data envelopment analysis and artifical neural networks as tools for assessing the efficiency of decision making units. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47(8), 1000–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beenstock, M., & Haitovsky, Y. (2004). Does the appointment of judges increase the output of the judiciary? International Review of Law and Economics, 24, 351–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, R. M. (2006). “McJustice”: on the McDonaldization of criminal justice. Justice Quarterly., 23(1), 127–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, R. M., & Haley, K. N. (2008). Introduction to criminal justice (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camanho, A. S., & Dyson, R. G. (1999). Efficiency, size, benchmarks and targets for bank branches: an application of data envelopment analysis. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50(9), 903–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, A., Harrison, K. & Hudzik, J.K. (2008). Adequate, stable, equitable and responsible trial court funding: Reframing the state vs. local debate. Report by the Justice Management Institute for the National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/223973.pdf.

  • Chandler, H. P. (1960). The problem of congestion and delay in the federal courts. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 328, 144–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operations Research., 2, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Church, T. (1978). Justice delayed: The pace of litigation in urban trial courts. National Center for State Courts. Publication No. R0041.

  • da Conceição Sampaio de Sousa, M., & Schwengber, S.B. (2005). Efficiency estimates for judicial services in Brazil: Nonparametric FDH and the expected order-m efficiency scores for Rio Grande Do Sul Courts. Found online December 10, 2009 at: http://www.anpec.org.br/encontro2005/artigos/A05A053.pdf

  • Deutsch, L. (2012). Los Angeles County courts begin downsizing. AP (June 15, 2012). Found online at: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/los-angeles-county-courts-begin-downsizing.

  • Drake, L., & Simper, R. (2000). Productivity estimation and the size-efficiency relationship in english and welsh police forces: an application of data envelopment analysis and multiple discriminate analysis. International Review of Law and Economics, 20, 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drake, L., & Simper, R. (2001). An economic evaluation of policing activity: an application of a hybrid methodology. European Journal of Law and Economics, 12, 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drake, L., & Simper, R. (2002). X-efficiency and scale economies in policing: a comparative study using the distribution free approach and DEA. Applied Economics, 34, 1859–1870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drake, L., & Simper, R. (2003). The measurement of english and welsh police force efficiency: a comparison of distance function models. European Journal of Operational Research, 147, 165–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drake, L., & Simper, R. (2004). The economics of managerialism and the drive for efficiency in policing. Managerial and Decision Economics, 25, 509–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duff, P. (1998). Crime control, due process and the case for the prosecution. British Journal of Criminology, 38(4), 611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstein, J. (1973). Politics and the legal process. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstein, J., & Jacob, H. (1977). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts. Boston: Little Brown & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, M. M. (1973). Two models of the criminal justice system: an organizational perspective. Law and Society Review., 7(3), 407–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrandino, J. (2012a). The impact of revision 7 on the technical efficiency of Florida’s circuit courts. Justice System Journal., 33(1), 22–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrandino, J. (2012b). The comparative technical efficiency of Florida’s campus police departments. Criminal Justice Review., 37(3), 301–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flango, V.E., & Ostrom, B.J. (1996). Assessing the need for judges and court support staff. National Center for State Courts. ISBN: 0-89656-162-3.

  • Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE, n.d.). Crime and Arrest Data. Available online at http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/FSAC/UCR/UCR-Home.aspx.

  • Florida State Courts (n.d.). Historical Judgeship Certification Chart. Found online at http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/stats/bin/CircuitJudgeswithdatesMarch2012.pdf

  • Florida State Courts Annual Report (2003–04).http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/pubs/bin/courts_annual_report04.pdf (last accessed June 2009).

  • Florida State Courts Summary Reporting System (n.d.). Florida Trial Court Statistics. Found online at: http://trialstats.flcourts.org/

  • Glick, H. R. (1983). Courts, politics and justice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, A. S. (1974). Reflections on two models: inquisitorial themes in American criminal procedure. Stanford Law Review, 26(5), 1009–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, M. F., & Ruggiero, J. (2009). Evaluating US judicial district prosecutor performance using DEA: are more disadvantaged counties more inefficient? European Journal of Law and Economics, 27, 275–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, J. (1970). Ideology in criminal procedure or a third “model” of the criminal process. The Yale Law Journal., 79(3), 359–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, D. J., Tobin, R. W., & Pankey, K. G., Jr. (2004). Balancing judicial independence and fiscal accountability in times of economic crisis. Judge’s Journal., 43(3), 5–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heydebrand, W. V. (1977). The context of public bureaucracies: an organizational analysis of federal district courts. Law & Society Review., 11(5), 759–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Historical Statewide Judgeship Table (2012). Available online at: http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/stats/bin/LAjudgeships3-12.pdf.

  • Holmes, M. D., Daudistel, H. C., & Taggart, W. A. (1992). Plea bargaining policy and state district court caseloads: an interrupted time series analysis. Law & Society Review., 26(1), 139–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kittelson, S. A. C., & Forsund, F. R. (1992). Efficiency analysis of Norwegian district courts. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3, 277–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A. Y., Morey, R. C., & Cook, T. J. (1982). Evaluating the administrative efficiency of courts. Omega: The International Journal of Management Science., 10(4), 401–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louthan, W. C. (1979). The politics of justice: A study in law, social science and public policy. Port Washington: National University Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConville, M., & Mirsky, C. (1995). Guilty plea courts: a social disciplinary model of criminal justice. Social Problems, 42(2), 216–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medlin, J. & Billings, R.B. (2003). Judicial independence requires more resources and greater management flexibility. The North Carolina Bar State Journal. Summer: 8–15.

  • Mohr, L. B. (1976). Organizations, decisions and courts. Law and Society Review., 10(4), 621–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, A., Nolan, J., & Segal, G. F. (2005). Putting out the trash: measuring municipal service efficiency in US cities. Urban Affairs Review., 41, 237–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nardulli, P. F. (1978). The courtroom elite. Cambridge: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyhan, R. C. (2002). Benchmarking tools: an application to juvenile justice facility performance. The Prison Journal, 82(4), 423–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyhan, R. C., & Martin, L. L. (1999a). Comparative performance measurement: a primer on data envelopment analysis. Public Productivity and Management Review., 22(3), 348–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyhan, R. C., & Martin, L. L. (1999b). Assessing the performance of municipal police services using data envelopment analysis: an exploratory study. State and Local Government Review., 31, 18–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, B.J., & Hanson, R.A. (1999). Efficiency, timeliness and quality: A new perspective from nine state criminal trial courts. National Institute of Justice and State Justice Institute. ISBN: 0-89656-199-2.

  • Packer, H. (1964). Two models of the criminal process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review., 113(1), 1–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packer, H. (1968). The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philippino House of Representatives (2004). Improving judicial efficiency. Policy Advisory No. 2004–02, Congressional Planning and Budget Department.

  • Roach, K. (1999). Four models of the criminal process. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 89(2), 671–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowles, J.P., Mackey, C., & McMillan, J.E. (1993). Court efficiency in the Bahamas: Analysis of major problems and suggested solutions. National Center for State Courts.

  • Rubinstein, M. L., & White, T. J. (1979). Alaska’s ban on plea bargaining. Law & Society Review., 13(2), 367–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolf, J. (2012). Pennsylvania public defenders rebel against crushing caseloads. Huffington Post (June 16, 2012). Found online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/pennsylvania-public-defenders_n_1556192.html.

  • Santobello v. New York (1971) (404 U.S. 257).

  • Scheingold, S. A., & Gressett, L. A. (1987). Policy, politics, and the criminal courts. American Bar Foundation Research Journal., 12(2/3), 461–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schick, R. P. (1926). Simplifying criminal procedure in the lower courts. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 125, 112–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmalleger, F. (2008). Criminal justice: A brief introduction (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M. R. (2005). Judicial career incentives and court performance: an empirical study of the German Labour Courts of Appeal. European Journal of Law and Economics, 20, 127–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulhofer, S. J. (1985). No job too small: justice without bargaining in the lower criminal courts. American Bar Foundation Research Journal., 10(3), 519–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. S. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. New Jersey: Pearson-Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • SPSS 20. IBM.

  • Sun, S. (2002). Measuring the relative efficiency of police precincts using data envelopment analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 36, 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunderland, L. V. (1980). Liberals, conservatives, and the exclusionary rule. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 71(4), 343–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tulkens, H. (1993). On FDH efficiency analysis: some methodological issues and applications to retail banking, courts and urban transit. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 4, 183–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uekert B.K., Douglas, J., Schauffler, R., Kleiman, S., Maggard, M., & Stenjborn, P. (2006). West Virginia circuit court judicial workload assessment: Final report. National Center for State Courts and State Justice Institute: SJI-06-N-075.

  • Verma, A., & Gavirneni, S. (2006). Measuring police efficiency in India: an application of data envelopment analysis. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management., 29, 125–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, S. (2012). Sense and nonsense about crime, drugs and community (7th ed.). Australia: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor at Indiana University-Northwest for funding this research through a Summer Research Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Criminal Justice, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University-Northwest, 3400 Broadway, Gary, IN, 46408, USA

    Joseph Ferrandino

Authors
  1. Joseph Ferrandino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph Ferrandino.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ferrandino, J. Testing the Packer Theorem: The Efficiency of Florida’s Criminal Circuit Courts. Am J Crim Just 39, 375–393 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-013-9207-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-013-9207-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation