The new Philadelphia Gun Court: Is it working

Gun violence has always been prevalent in Philadelphia. However, in recent years, Philadelphia has had a rash of gun-related homicides. The Philadelphia Gun Court was initiated in January 2005 as a tool to combat gun violence. While the court is still in its infancy, it has now been in existence long enough for us to preliminarily evaluate the court's effectiveness in its first year. This Thesis focuses on the Philadelphia Gun Court. First, it looks at how the Gun Court came into existence. Second, it assesses whether the court is working. Finally, it considers whether the court should serve as a model for other jurisdictions based on its first year's performance.;In examining how the Gun Court started, we considered the climate of the city before the court was created. We also discussed the key events, programs and people who played a role in starting the court.;In assessing whether the Gun Court is working, we considered two major questions. The first major question was whether the Philadelphia Gun Court more efficiently disposed of illegal gun possession cases than other non-specialized common pleas criminal trial courts? In answering this question, we considered three separate questions. (1) Were there speedier waiver trials in the new Philadelphia Gun Court than in other non-specialized common pleas criminal courts in 2005 from the date the state filed a criminal complaint against a defendant until his sentencing? Here we looked at how quickly Gun Court and non-gun court common pleas criminal cases were adjudicated or disposed of from the date the state filed a criminal complaint against a defendant until the date the defendant was sentenced. Only 2005 data were used for this hypothesis. (2) Were there speedier waiver trials in Gun Court in 2005 than in other non-specialized common pleas criminal courts in 2003 and 2004? Here we looked at how quickly Gun Court cases in 2005 were adjudicated and disposed of from the date the state filed a criminal complaint against a defendant until the date the defendant was sentenced.;Next, we looked at how quickly non-specialized common pleas criminal court cases (i.e., those cases whose most serious charge was a gun possession offense) in 2003 and 2004 were adjudicated or disposed of from the date the state filed a criminal complaint against a defendant until the date the defendant was sentenced. We then compared the 2005 Gun Court cases with the 2003 and 2004 non-specialized common pleas criminal court cases which had gun offenses as their most serious charge to see which cases were adjudicated or disposed of more quickly---Gun Court or the traditional court. (3) Have there been more guilty plea dispositions in Gun Court than in non-specialized common pleas criminal courts?;The second major question was whether Philadelphia's Gun Court more effectively treated defendants who were convicted of illegal gun possession. In order to answer this question, three other questions were addressed. (1) Have defendants who have gone through the Gun Court's treatment program in 2005 had a lower recidivism rate for gun charges than defendants in other non-specialized common pleas criminal courts who did not have treatment in the same year? (2) Have defendants who have gone through the Gun Court's treatment program in 2005 had a lower recidivism rate for gun charges than defendants in other non-specialized common pleas criminal courts whose most serious charges in 2003 and 2004 were gun charges? (3) Have defendants who have gone through the Gun Court's treatment program in 2005 had a lower recidivism rate in re-offending on gun charges than untreated non-gun court common pleas defendants who did not have gun charges as their most serious charge in 2003 and 2004?;Once all questions were answered, we considered whether the court should serve as a model for other counties or jurisdictions based on its performance.;Most of the hypotheses did not test as predicted. However, out of the six hypotheses tested, we were able to make two key findings. The first finding is that Gun Court may have increased the efficiency of the non-gun courts by reducing the number of days the non-gun courts dispose of their cases. The second finding is that Gun Court may have increased the number of defendants who pled guilty. These findings suggest that the Gun Court may be working as envisioned since the gun possession cases that were being adjudicated in the specialty court may have allowed the overall court system to operate more efficiently.