skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 64629 Find in a Library
Title: BALANCING COSTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION - THE BURGER COURT'S EXPANSIVE NEW APPROACH
Journal: AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW  Volume:17  Issue:2  Dated:(FALL 1979)  Pages:160-200
Author(s): J S ELSON
Corporate Author: American Bar Association
United States of America
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 41
Sponsoring Agency: American Bar Association
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THE COST BALANCING APPROACH OF THE BURGER SUPREME COURT TO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS VERSUS GOVERNMENT INTERESTS IS VIEWED AS AN UNJUSTIFIED DEPARTURE FROM TRADITIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS.
Abstract: INTEREST BALANCING HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN LIMITED TO CLOSE CONSTITUTIONAL CASES WHERE CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNMENT NEEDS IS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE UNCERTAIN PURPOSES OF THE CONSTITUTION. GOVERNMENT INTEREST IN REDUCING COSTS HAS BEEN A DECISIVE FACTOR IN BALANCING INTERESTS ONLY WHERE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE OF MINOR SIGNIFICANCE. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS CONCERNING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND JURY TRIAL INDICATE THAT THE BURGER COURT MAY BE EMPLOYING A NEW MODE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS WHICH PERMITS BROADER CONSIDERATION OF STATE INTERESTS SUCH AS FINANCIAL AID. THIS APPROACH TO INTEREST BALANCING DIFFERS FROM THE PRIOR APPROACH IN THAT IT BALANCES GOVERNMENT INTERESTS INCLUDING FINANCIAL COSTS AS A GENERAL OR PREFERRED METHOD OF RESOLVING CONSTITUTIONAL UNCERTAINTIES. THE BROADENED INTEREST BALANCING APPROACH OF BURGER IS NOT WARRANTED, AND IT IS CONTRARY TO DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES LIMITING THE DEGREE TO WHICH CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES DEPEND ON MORAL AND SOCIAL VALUES OF JUDGES. A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE TRADITIONAL ROLE OF INTEREST BALANCING IN CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION, THE USE OF FINANCIAL COSTS TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND JURY TRIAL, AND THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE BURGER APPROACH IS PRESENTED. CASE LAW IS CITED. (DEP)
Index Term(s): Cost analysis; Judicial decisions; Right to counsel; Right to trial by jury; Rights of the accused; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=64629

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.