Issues of Court Management, Assessment Example

Introduction

Currently, there are various challenges courts face due to the changes of the legislation, requirement, political pressure and social issues. The below review will be focusing on the most important ones; budgeting, court management, security, interpretation and language issues, and finally the rights of victims within the proceedings of the court. The analysis will be based on previous research in the United States, frameworks for court management and the guidelines for procedural fairness. According to Cronkhite, (2013) the challenges predicted in the 1980-s by experts are the part of courts’ present; globalization, fast circulation of news, and rage-crimes. (school shootings, mass execution attracting the attention of millions). Given the above circumstances, the main purpose of court administration should be to provide an effective and fair service for both victims and suspects. The below overview will attempt to cover all these challenges and provide a suitable framework for the implementation of changes needed.

Procedural Fairness

The term “procedural fairness” is defined as “being understandable, accessible, respectful and trustworthy” in the eyes of public. (Center for Court Innovations, 2011) Fairness can be improved by implementing changes to clarify communication, in particular the websites of the court, as an increasing number of people are using these to gain information about legal proceedings. During the court procedure, it is also extremely crucial that equal opportunities are given to all people. Making sure that video and telephone conferencing are available when needed and when there is a reason for their use is also crucial. This might reduce the costs of proceedings and provide flexible solutions, faster decisions and fairer treatments for the users of the service.

General Cost and Court Management Issues

There is a need for reexamining the performances and effectiveness of the courts in the US, according to Schauffler. (2007, p. 112.) Budget resources are limited, while the requirements for support, accountability and information access are increasing, due to the recent changes in the legislation and the politicization of the courts. The reform package of the public sector included plenty of budget cuts, and did not reduce the political pressure on the US courts. Performance management and measurement got a new meaning, according to Schauffler, (p. 120.) The new measurement values were determined as follows:

-“correspondence to fundamental court values”

-“balanced perspective on the work of the court”

-“feasibility and sustainability”. (Schauffler, p. 120-121.)

New measurements were introduced, and in order to achieve sustainability financial budgetary changes needed to be introduced without compromising on the level of service to the public and making sure that guidelines are met on every measurement level. Providing appropriate data quality, developing standards have been some of the greatest challenges. According to Schauffler (2007), many of the court administrators lack education and training in management or skills required for organization, policy implementation and dealing with complexity.

Language and Interpretation

Grabau and Gibbons (1996) identified the main issue of interpretation in court as the lack of qualified and competent court interpreters. The authors highlighted the fact that more than 32 million people were not using English as their first language. This minority needs to be served by the court considering their rights to fair treatment and avoiding the suspicion of discrimination. If these people are not represented in court being given the same rights as those speaking English as their first language, no matter whether or not this is intentional, their rights are damaged. Determining when there is a need for a qualified interpreter is the decision of the judge, and Grabau and Gibbons (1996) bring up some examples when judges dismissed the requests.

As the interpreter has three different roles (Grabau and Gibbons, 1996), there is a need for assessing their language and interpersonal skills alike, as well as their knowledge about the court proceedings. While the budgets of the US state courts are limited, in order to maintain fair treatment of all victims, suspects and witnesses, it is crucial that the interpreters would be trained and assessed on a regular basis.

The legislation of court interpretation is currently provided by the The State Court Certification Consortium in Washington, New Jersey, Oregon and Minnesota (Grabau and Gibbons, 1996) to provide testing and certification. It is recommended that guidelines and testing would be provided in the future within every state court in order to maintain the rights of all public service users. The Center for Court Innovations (2011) document goes further than that in its recommendation document: for immediate implementation they propose that: “encourage all court staff to participate in trainings regarding the needs of non-English speaking court

users. Role-playing exercises can be used to simulate the experience of being unable to communicate in the dominant language of the court.”. (p. 28.) It is also important to review and revise the “Standards and ethical guidelines for interpreters”. (online)

Victim Rights And Legislation Issues

Legislation of victim rights is measured by procedural fairness of the court. The interaction between court users and staff is the most important tool of exercising victim rights. Ensuring that information is available of all public service users to understand court proceedings is one of the major challenges. Simplifying forms and providing staff training on communicating procedures and court rules with the public need to be implemented in the long term strategies of US courts. Further, the development of mobile units, video- and voice conferencing would help those living in rural areas. With the development of communication technology, there is also a need to review whether it is possible to create online forms that can be securely filled out and sent through to the relevant department, alongside with the expansion of online resources available for public service users. (Center for Court Innovation, p. 5-6.)

Providing training to court officers, especially “bench officers” to interact with the public in an objective and impartial manner is essential to avoid claims of mistreatment. (Center for Court Innovation, p. 7.) Adapting problem-solving approaches when dealing with the public is a skill greatly needed in court. Ensuring that victim protection and rights are implemented is crucial, and that is why the procedures need to be revised according to the Victim’s Rights Protection Act (1990). This would include the procedures of notification of rights, proceedings, restitution and providing information about how victims can exercise their rights. (Travis, 1998)

Conclusion

From the above overview of literature related to court management and procedures, it is evident that there is a need for reviewing the training policies, effectiveness of proceedings and diversity issues in US courts. Focusing on the training of staff, interpreters and assessing the performance of courts according to the new guidelines would provide a more efficient, accessible and fairer criminal justice system for the public. (Schauffler, 2007)

References

Cronkhite, C. (2013) Law Enforcement and Justice Administration: Strategies for the 21^st Century, Jones & Bartlett.

Standards and ethical guidelines for interpreters. Online. <www.courts.ca.gov/xbcr/cc/Ethics_Manual_4th_Ed_Master.pdf.>

Travis, J. (1998) The Rights of Crime Victims—Does Legal Protection Make a Difference? National Institute of Justice Research. December, 1998

Schauffler, R. (2007) Judicial accountability in the US state courts Measuring court performance. Utrecht Law Review, Volume 3, Issue 1 (June) 2007

Procedural Fairness in California. (2011) Center for Court Innovations Report. Online. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Procedural_Fairness_In_California_May_2011.pdf

Grabau, C., Gibbons, L. (1996) Protecting the Rights of Linguistic Minorities: Challenges to Court Interpretation. NEW ENG.L.REV. 227 (1996)