ABSTRACT In the US, courts widely perceive that judicial scarcity is a common problem threatening the fair and timely resolution of disputes. Courts cite the attendant interest in judicial economy to justify interpreting the procedural and substantive law to reduce the judicial workload or accelerate the resolution of cases. But courts’ assumption that there are too few judges to handle the current caseload is hard to substantiate. First, it may not be possible to infer from excessive judicial backlogs or other perceived judicial deficiencies that a shortfall of judges is to blame. Second, even when one confidently perceives that a judicial backlog or other deficiency in a particular US court is attributable to a dearth of judges, one cannot fairly generalize from that example to other US courts and jurisdictions. And third, judgments about judicial deficiencies popularly attributed to the inadequacy of judicial resources may turn on contestable assumptions about judges and adjudication. Given these challenges to measuring the adequacy of judicial resources, one might be skeptical whether judicial economies are worth the costs they impose.

中文翻译：

---

美国司法经济的价格

摘要在美国，法院普遍认为司法稀缺是威胁公正，及时解决争端的普遍问题。法院援引司法经济的附带利益来证明解释程序法和实体法的合理性，以减少司法工作量或加快案件的解决速度。但是，法院认为法官人数太少而无法处理当前案件的假设很难成立。首先，可能无法从过多的司法积压案或其他公认的司法缺陷中推断出法官的短缺。其次，即使有人自信地认为某个特定美国法院的积压案件或其他缺陷可归因于法官的缺乏，也不能从那个例子中公平地将其推广到其他美国法院和司法管辖区。第三，普遍归因于司法资源不足的关于司法缺陷的判决可能会基于关于法官和裁决的可争议的假设。鉴于在衡量司法资源的充足性方面面临这些挑战，人们可能会怀疑司法经济是否值得其承担的成本。