Trends in the Management of Courts

Trends in the Management of Courts

Name:

Instructor’s name:

Course title:

Date:

Trends in the Management of Courts

Specialized courts are an alternative to traditional court processes. The approaches used are more tailored to respond to certain problems. There are alternative courts that require the existing resources to be reallocated, whereas others require investment of staff and financial resources as well as constant collaboration. As a result, the processes of alternative court have gained support and recognition in various jurisdictions as a way of managing criminal offenders.

Inmate population in America is so enormous that the country’s policymakers are becoming increasingly concerned. All the prisons are overcrowded: federal, state and local prisons. Overcrowding has a massive effect on the local budgets; for states with limited resources, maintaining high incarceration levels is unsustainable. A way that states can tackle the problems related to criminal activities without relying on imprisonment is the implementation of alternative or specialized courts (Markus, 2009).

Operations of these courts result in the collaboration of social service agents, attorneys, and criminal service practitioners who closely monitor cases with the aim of coming up with favorable results. Since these courts are based on the principle of collaboration, it requires all courtroom players and stakeholders to closely work together so as to find solutions to problems at hand. The stakeholders may include judges, supervision agencies, court administrators, attorneys, social service agents, criminal service practitioners and community members.

The second guiding principle is accountability. It requires the compliance of all stakeholders involved by keeping track of court performance and outcomes. Those involved are social service agents, courtroom players and defendants. Special courts’ responsibilities lie with the community and the court system. Therefore, these two principles highlight the rigorous and collaborative nature of these courts, thus outlining their effectiveness as problem solvers.

Impact of the specialized courts can be appreciated through their set objectives and goals. These include collaboration of resolutions and policies, monitoring outcomes, retention of those participating, explaining penalties and responsibilities, participation of service providers, coordination of all staff, and direct judicial participation. Existence of alternative courts also free up the limited resources used by lower courts. Lower courts experience issues such as inadequate facilities, unbalanced case loads, and inadequate financing. Thus specialized courts offer a sound alternative (Keilitz, 2000).

When similar cases involved are to be decided, the courts may combine the cases so that there is effective use of limited judicial resources. That is court consolidation. Resolving the cases involved jointly helps all parties concerned to reduce expenses of litigation and also save on time. Hence it may result in single judgment or, in other instances, in separate judgments. Court restructuring involves streamlining the court system in order to increase its accessibility, effectiveness and efficiency.

The traditional court structure is confusing, expensive to maintain and impedes litigants from pursuing their legal rights. Through court restructuring and consolidation, the greater efficiencies realized will shift the focus to justice administration, right where it belongs. Public confidence in the court system is also restored. Public understanding about operations of the court system is possible through the simplified structure.

Impact of court consolidation and restructuring is massive. Firstly, it leads to the removal of jurisdictional and procedural obstacles that are common to multi-layered court structure. This results in reduction of litigation cost and time. Secondly, simplifying the court system makes it easier to understand and more accessible for the victims and the general public. In addition, difficulties commonly experienced in family-related litigation are lessened, thus furthering consistency of outcome and greater fairness (Johnson & Burgess, 2009).

Consolidation and restructuring also ensure that distribution of resources to the different court levels is conducted in a more appropriate manner, particularly resources related to family matters. Lower courts consolidation expands their powers, thus offering better services to the local communities. Restructuring enables administrative efficiencies implementation and improved case management.

Simplified court structure makes the judiciary more user-friendly and understandable for litigants representing themselves, thereby promoting respect for rule of law. Restructuring promotes uniformity in court procedures and rules – simplifying the work of court personnel. It also eliminates most of the disputes between courts, this expedites movement of cases and disputes through the court system (Maytal, 2008).

Implementation of specialized courts has brought about changes in the judicial system. Data obtained from National Institute of Justice indicate the greatest benefits of instituting alternative courts are therapeutic jurisprudence and case management. This has led to the setting up of these courts: domestic violence court, drug court, and mental health court. The number of these courts is rapidly rising because they have proved their effectiveness.

Introduction of special courts has facilitated improved case management through speedy case processing, increased trial capacity, and reduced case load. There is also a reduction of criminal offending by tackling issues through interdisciplinary procedures without risking public safety. Judges with particular expertise or/and talents may be assigned to courts that are suitable to them. This enables judges to hear cases involving cases they are familiar with. Therefore cases are expedited, results become consistent and fair, and resolutions made quickly.

Changes made as a result of court consolidation and restructuring are reducing the size of multi-layered court structures and administrative structures. However, no court employee loses his/her job as a result of implementation of restructuring. Restructuring has an opportunity for standardization and integration of court’s management systems. This integration has resulted in cost savings by eliminating redundant records and data (Johnson & Burgess, 2009).

Court consolidation and restructuring increase productivity. Caseloads and day-to-day operational costs of the courts have been rising considerably and steadily in the past years. Court restructuring significantly reduces the size of caseloads and the costs incurred by the judiciary in processing the caseloads. Consolidated court structure permits improved efficiency and effectiveness of judiciary operations through unified management of judicial system.

Reference

Johnson, R. D., & Burgess, L. B. (2009). Working Group on the Restructuring of, and Access to, the Judiciary.

Keilitz, S. (2000). Specialization of Domestic Violence Case Management in the Courts: A National Survey 1. National Center for State courts.

Markus, B. Z. (August 2009). Overview of Specialized Courts. International Journal For Court Administration.

Maytal, A. (2008). Specialized Domestic Violence Courts: Are they Worth the Trouble in Massachusetts? Public Interest Law Journal, Vol. 18:197, 197-235.