The 1,107 Steps to a Criminal Conviction

A new report digs into the towering pile of paperwork and bureaucracy in the British criminal justice system and tallies a whopping 1,107 procedural steps for police and courts between the investigation of a crime and a successful prosecution. This is why cops are always complaining about paperwork.

The report comes from Dru Sharpling, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary (that last phrase can't be said out loud without an accent, I dare you to try it), and argues that these layers of red tape have slowed the country's justice system to a crawl, putting public safety in danger. The country could save millions of pounds by streamlining the police and court processes and removing duplicate duties that have grown out of control over the years. It does, however, tread on some dangerous territory when it goes on to recommend closer cooperation between police and prosecutors.

Tenaciously chasing efficiency is admirable, and systems around the world could benefit from a shift in the direction of cooperation and collaboration between agencies. But the recommendation that we empower police to act as prosecutors on minor charges is extremely dangerous. I'm no expert in the British justice system, but these agencies are already too close in the U.S. and they have a natural affinity to cooperate, sometimes at the expense of a defendant. Efficiency shouldn't come at the cost of justice.

U.K. victims' commissioner Louise Casey also spoke out yesterday about the staggering cost of delays in the criminal justice system, calling the courts "a publicly funded waiting game." She urged the British government to redirect thousands of minor infractions to lower-level magistrates' courts, cutting juries out of the process since most defendants plead guilty anyway. This is also a bit troubling, and a similar intent was echoed in Sharpling's report. There is room for compromise, however. It's true that minor crimes shouldn't be permitted to clog our courts, but we also can't deny innocent defendants the chance to clear their name. We should seek streamlined courts, but that doesn't necessarily mean forcing plea bargains or teaming police with prosecutors. It could mean 21st century computer systems, rigorous commitment to simplicity in documents and communications and (an idea taking root in the U.K.) virtual hearings.

The public court system has spiraled out of control on both sides of the pond, and police and courts drag their feet at the expense of taxpayers while failing to deliver justice. It'll take innovation and non-traditional thinking to make these changes, since sprawling bureaucracies aren't exactly very effective at cannibalizing themselves. One promising avenue to bring about this change is through projects like Social Finance, which I wrote about a few weeks ago. By aligning investors with the interests of effective, fair justice, we can bring about the kind of efficiency we see in the private sector -- without privatizing. To truly change the culture of our police stations and courtrooms, we may need a kick from the outside, and investors might just provide the kick that we need.

Photo Credit: kozumel