COURT MANAGEMENT TRENDS
Introduction
Court management trends entail the activities that involve the case in the judicial system within and without the case. It requires legal management, communication, and administration since it focuses on the leadership within the legal system, involves how court officials relate to one another, the technology involved in court management, communication within the proper communication and appropriation of budgets to the courts. The court management trends affect all levels of the councils and assemblies in the court management. They influence how the judicial and criminal system policy formulation, practices, and planning. The trends involve cooperation and coordination of all agencies in the legal system/
Court management trends are a common phenomenon and concern all over the world to eliminate long period proceedings, case backlogs, and reducing the cost of litigation. The patterns are measured in terms of objectives and fulfilling the community needs. The assignment aims to highlight court management trends and how specialized courts, court consolidation, and restructuring of victims’ rights affect courts. It could also show the changes the court agencies have made in court management.
The implementation of specialized or alternative courts
Court specialization has become a practical trend that has helped the judicial system to advance its reforms. Specialty and alternative courts have helped in solving problems affecting the legal system like increasing access to contract enforcement, promotion of climate through investment, and sufficient promotion of the efforts aimed at protecting the environment (Casey Welch, 2015). Research in many countries like the United States and Australia has shown that specialization and alternative courts have fostered in administering complex cases and require high levels of experts to solve since they surpass the law (Justice, 2016). They help to solve complex cases that require to be handled differently to address the unique needs of a specific group like mental health cases, environmental issues, and matters of business or family issues.
Research has also shown that specialization and alternative courts affect courts negatively since there are much attention and resources channeled to these courts hence leading to perceptions of preferential treatment to environmental issues and the business sphere as compared to ordinary citizens seeking judicial justice (Christine Evans, 2015). Specialized courts have been established in the states and federal level without the justification of caseloads leading the questioning of the resources and investments which could have been otherwise used in the overall judicial improvement. The judges who work in specialized courts develop a narrow understanding and expertise of the law as a result of the limited focus on the bill, thus missing out on the new emerging rules. Judged establish a close working with a specific group of people and lawyers, therefore compromise their integrity and fairness in administering justice (Justice, 2016). There is a need to carry out more research on the effects of these specialized courts and what is required to make them useful in court management.
The impact of court consolidation and restructuring on victim rights laws
The criminal system in the united states, in the past decades, did effective polices services and prosecutors to enhance victim rights laws (Jennifer M. Allen, 2019). Victims did their investigation and used private prosecutors and attorneys to write an indictment. Victims control usually made the victims be the beneficiary and decision-makers in criminal cases. In the past few decades, the penal system consolidated, leading to the emergence of deterrence and punishment, depending on criminal and civil cases since they were distinguished (Justice, 2016). The responsibilities which traditionally held by the victims were transferred to the prosecutors who acted as advocates of the society in the process of court consolidation.
Court consolation does not give the victims the obsolete power to be in charge of the case (Jennifer M. Allen, 2019). The court proceedings are exclusive to prosecutors; hence most of the time, victims do not get a chance to give their accounting of the case. Failure for victims to provide the account of the witness lead to dismissal of evidence before trial. Consolidation of courts affects the ability of the victim to participate formally in the criminal proceedings since they do not provide the prosecutor with information regarding the crime (Justice, 2016). Court consolidation does not offer the victim the occurrences and the reasons.
In most cases in consolidated courts, elected judicial officials are essential interested in promoting public interests as opposed to victims’ interests (Christine Evans, 2015). Court officials only cooperate with the victims in the case so that they could not lose the case, thus affecting the core value of justice to all. There many reasons that make prosecutors have selective vigor in pursuing cases that include administrative issues, political and legal (Justice, 2016). In some cases, prosecutors, judges, and attorneys have vested interests, thus influence the rate of finishing the situation and ensuring predictable incomes arrive.
Court agencies contribution to court management trends
The court agencies have made changes regarding court management trends at the local, state, and federal levels. In the last three decades, the police force and prosecutors department have designed and implemented new policies and practices that foster justice for all (Jennifer M. Allen, 2019). The changes include community policing, and communication has led to the emergence of new trends in court management systems. The court agencies have inculcated input of the community when it comes to prosecution and policing in the criminal justice system. The involvement of the agencies has led to the adoption of a problem-solving method that is public orientated. This approach adequately addresses the problems of a community, thus achieving success in administering justice (Justice, 2016). The multi agencies’ response to the rising trends in the court system has led to the improvement of livelihood of the communities in the local, federal and state levels. Since the court agencies work together in all levels of government, it has left to courts with no other option but to work together to improve the courts’ management systems.
The court agencies have promoted innovation in the court management since the prosecutors, attorneys, advocates, and the correctional facilities have incorporated policies, technologies, philosophies, and practices that promote justice punishment and deterrence in court management trends (Jennifer M. Allen, 2019). Since there is a rise in crime in the state and federal levels, overcrowding in correctional facilities and addressing community needs technology has been used to link the agencies in court management to improve communication and proper use of resources in the judicial system. Agencies have made changes in the prosecution and investigating cases since they influence funding to the legal system, structures in court management, and the organization size of the courts that administer criminal justice. Agencies have advocated for appropriate budgeting to the judicial system by the federal government (Justice, 2016). The agencies help in monitoring inhibitors to the truth in the legal system and source external funding that provide extra resources for courts.
References