For most of two centuries Tennesseans have taken it for granted that their state's system of justice was there to serve all people.

It is only in the relatively recent past that voters and taxpayers of this state, like citizens everywhere, have begun to believe that the administration of justice does not serve them well and to question the quality of justice dispensed by the system.

Tennesseans are not alone in expressing these negative attitudes. For a decade, national public opinion polls have documented widespread citizen concern that the system is breaking down under its own weight.

A multiplicity of factors has contributed to the doubts and questions. These factors include: the phenomenal explosion of litigation, both civil and criminal, in all jurisdictions; the gnawing fear of crime in the streets and its impact on how criminals are dealt with in the courtroom; a series of sensational and controversial jury verdicts; a number of unpopular appellate opinions regarding the system; and the spiraling expense of going to court, particularly to resolve civil disputes.

After this comes the number of reported horror stories from those who have rubbed up against the system and have felt burned by the abrasive experience. Victims of crimes, jurors, witnesses and litigants all have complained that while the system serves lawyers and sometimes those accused of crimes, it does not serve them, nor does it serve the cause of justice.

With all this in mind, the Tennessee Supreme Court, the institution most responsible for this state's effective and efficient operation of the judicial system, took steps several years ago to address and correct the flaws that afflict the system. It created a court executive team and several commissions and committees to identify and deal with obvious and immediate problems. Already this initiative is producing reports and proposing rules, procedures and legislation that will make a short-term difference.

But the proliferation of lawsuits, the fear of crime, the controversial jury verdicts and unpopular appellate opinions and the high cost of litigation are not short-term problems. They can be expected to persist long-term.

Understanding that, the court appointed yet another body, the Commission on the Future of the Tennessee Judicial System, with a charge to develop a vision for a model system of justice that would serve all Tennesseans well into the 21st century. This report, To Serve All People, is a result of the work of that Commission. The words, To Serve All People, speak for themselves. The findings, conclusions and recommendations need no elaboration from the Commission's Chairman. What seems appropriate here are a few words of explanation about the makeup and work of the Commission and a few words of appreciation which inadequately express the sincerely felt gratitude of the Commission Chair.

We came together more than two years ago, 34 members from diverse backgrounds and from every section of the state. Half of us were non-lawyers from outside the system, half were lawyers and judges. Those selected from the outside came from disparate backgrounds - business, organized labor, the academia, economics, agriculture, civic affairs, public relations and the media. Those from inside represented every level of the administration of justice, including law enforcement and corrections as well as the courts.

It was inevitable, given the character of the Commission, that there would be misunderstandings, disagreements, and occasional confrontations of viewpoint. Most often and quite naturally these occurred when questions were raised or challenges made between those inside the system and those outside.

Not infrequently, however, the adversarial instincts of lawyers inside the system also exposed conflicting ideas. There were, after all, lawyers whose clients and constituencies had little in common.

Throughout, the civility, courtesy and respect demonstrated by every Commission member reflected an understanding that we all were dedicated to the same goal - a markedly improved system of justice that would serve all people. It is a tribute to the members of the Commission, all busy with other interests both personal and professional, that attendance at Commission meetings, weekend retreats and task force and committee sessions averaged slightly above 80% over two years. Considering the fact that Commission members from East and West Tennessee were required to travel long distances, that record is remarkable.

Some of the findings of the Commission represent dramatic change that will stir concern and even consternation among some within the system who are comfortable with the status quo. It is fair to say that the Commission is united in its view that if the system is to serve all people 30 years into the future and beyond, dramatic change is required.

Because some of the findings disturb the status quo, it is certain that our report will draw fire. If as a result debate and dialogue ensue, that will be in the public interest. Commission members are convinced that to create a model system for the future, rules must be changed, laws must be passed and the Constitution must be amended. Some of that may come easily; most of it will be difficult.

Along the way, discussion about To Serve All People may produce other ideas or open alternative avenues that will enhance the system beyond the vision of our Commission. That would be welcomed by us all.

Commission members do not pretend that To Serve All People answers every question, closes every loophole or answers every serious defect in the administration of justice. For example, of all of the hundreds of hours of expert testimony we heard, none was more compelling than that offered by victims of crime. The Commission wrestled with the realization that, even as this report is released, many people who have been wounded by crime will feel wounded again by the inadequacy of the system. Part of the pain they feel, comes from practices that treat them with indifference, insensitivity, even callousness.

After struggling with this issue through the life of the Commission, we are convinced that this system will not be a model until it serves all people, including victims of crime.

In the final analysis, victims of crime, as well as all others, will best be served by a system of justice that works effectively and efficiently with public confidence and citizen support. But as that goal is pursued, it is imperative that all those within the legal bureaucracy come to a new awareness that victims? rights groups need to be communicated with and helped so that their pain is not magnified.

The Chair is indebted to every single member of the Commission for the commitment and talent brought to our task. Special thanks are due those who chaired the task forces - Marty Black, Andrea Conte, Michael Grant and Clayburn Peeples, and to the committee chairs - Dick Wirtz, Paul Neely and Lee Smith.

I am indebted to the support of the court executive team and its chair, John Maddux, who also served as a Commission member. Our work would have been impossible had it not been for the extremely competent staff work provided by Charles Ferrell, court administrator, and his staff - particularly Susan Taylor, whose constant attention to detail enhanced our work.

The commission came into being during the administration of Governor Ned McWherter and has existed through the administration of Governor Don Sundquist, whose legal representative Hardy Mays faithfully observed our deliberations.

We owe special debts to Lieutenant Governor John Wilder and Representative Bill Purcell, the House majority leader, whose participation on the Commission gave us an understanding of the legislative process vital to any improvement of the system of justice.

Throughout this entire period, we have benefited immeasurably from the wise counsel and generous support of the members of the Supreme Court. In this regard Lyle Reid, who was Chief Justice at the time our Commission was created, has been a special friend and mentor. His successors as Chief Justice, Riley Anderson, Aldolpho A. Birch, Jr., and Charles O'Brien, continued the court's interest in our work and we are very grateful.

Finally, a special expression to Paul Neely, whose eloquence and elegant prose is responsible for the tenor and tone of To Serve All People. I know I speak for every commission member in expressing to him our sincere thanks for giving voice to our goal: to help create a system of justice to serve all people.

Goto Next Section
Return to Table of Contents