Court clog delegitimizes and decreases the value of justice.

The culprit, therefore, is the personal injury and death actions that of necessity increase in our expanding mechanized society, and of these cases, a small number retard the even flow of the whole but, merely to accelerate the trial of the more serious cases as recommended by some courts, would not remedy the sluggishness of case flow and would at the same time cause an injustice to the smaller cases. All cases, large and small, are entitled to expeditious disposition. A fairer and more effective solution must be found, as the victims of the vast majority of tortious acts are the viable and vociferous majority, causing disrespect for our judicial system.

In his most exhaustive study of the sluggishness of case-flow, Professor H. Zeisel of the University of Chicago has observed:

"Delay in the courts is unqualifiedly bad. It is bad because it deprives citizens of a basic public service, it is bad because the lapse of time frequently causes deterioration of evidence and makes it less likely that justice be done when the case is finally tried; it is bad because delay may cause severe hardship to some parties and may in general affect litigants differentially; and it is bad because it brings to the entire court system a loss of public confidence, respect and pride. It invites in brief the wisecrack made a few years ago in a magazine editorial, 'Okay, blind, but why so slow."6

Even though civil dockets are far behind criminal cases because constitutionally an accused is entitled to a speedy trial, the criminal docket itself likewise lags and adds to the whole delay by taking precedence in the order of trial. For that reason, the following observation by J. B. Jennings must just as well be applied to the problem of civil delay:

Congestion and delay in courts throughout the country threaten to strangle our system of justice, for as delays increase, the innocent who cannot afford to make bail suffer longer in jail, the guilty who are released pose greater threats to society, and the deterrant value of speedy justice is lost. The resultant pressures to dispose of cases more and more quickly lead to still other wrongs; less and less attention is given to each case, and greater reliance is placed on the disposition of case through 'Plea Bargaining' and the likelihood of injustice increases."7

The bar, which fought so zealously for a jury system and the retention thereof, as so eloquently described by Fellow DeCoff in his Dean's address last year is in jeopardy of seeing the jury trial system gradually whittled away until as in other countries once having it, it is non-existent.