Reforming the Organization of Courts - Research Paper Example

?COURTS Task: Courts Introduction A court is a governmental body, in the form of a tribunal that possesses the man to host, officiates, arbitrates legal clashes between different parties concerned, and in accordance with the law of the land, carries out adept administration of law, justice and order in the solution of social, criminal and governmental issues. Courts are universally responsible for dispute resolution when a complainant remits accusation or charges on the other party. Both parties possess equal rights in a way that the accused should be allowed to shield themselves from the charges, since the accusation may be false. The court systems that interpret and put the la into practice are called the judiciary. The courts have the jurisdiction to deliver verdicts after A successful trial (Janda, 2008). Reforming the organization of courts In order to enhance the judicial court system delivery, various elementary measures ought to be instilled into correct use. These include aspects of administration that aim at enhancing service delivery to the public and the corporate world. Parties who present their cases ought to feel at home and well served. To achieve these rectifications in the operations of the courts has to be altered for the good of the people. The judicial branches sought to be transformed immediately. This spells out modes of selection of judges; the ways that they are punished and evaluated according to their performance and overall delivery to services presented to them, this practice ensures that the decisions or verdicts arrived at are credibly justifiable and correct (Janda, 2008). The verdict delivered in this case should be free from bias or personal conveniences. Thus, this practice of judicial reform uses or results into the citizens or involved parties served by the courts developing profound trust in the judicial system and, thus, is more likely to cooperate in ensuring that anything unlawful is punished accordingly. Go further enhance judicial efficient and fruitful judicial conduct in handling of cases; the ministry of justice has to distribute capital reinforcement required in the maintenance of the courts and related affairs. This money is supposed to be remitted to the treasury and its use highly scrutinized all through to enhance proper use. Thus, with this kind of reinforcement, the court will have reformed positively and directed towards quality legal service delivery for welfare of the entire community. To increase the speed of service delivery in courts and the entire judicial affiliations, several correctional policies ought to be inculcated in the progression of the court processes. Basically, one of the chief quandaries that hamper quickly an effectual service delivery in courts and entire judicial affiliations is the prevalence of backlog due to slow or extremely ineffective legal service delivery systems that only involves overdependence on human skill only and does not involved use of enhancing techniques. F or instance, in many law courts, the judges, justices, lawyers and other personnel in the workforce usually work depending only on their physical abilities. These abilities include the use of extensive hardcopy filing systems in their records and references (Jones, 2003). They therefore have to carry with them the cumbersome documents for use during court processions. This is tiresome and brings about sluggishness in the solving of cases during court processions. Thus, as a corrective and enhancive measure to combat the imminent sluggishness in law interpretation and applications, computers have to be utilized in the courts and related associations. These computers can be used to store information in form of files, in translation systems, in doing of camerawork and in the monitoring of security in the court rooms. Introduction of computers in the court therefore counteracts the trade offs and pitfalls that slow down theses processes. Enhancement of quick disposition of cases is, thus, buffered, creating more opportunities to solve new cases. Additionally, revision of procedural filling and completion of forms and sorting of other credentials to save time and reduce costs. To enhance effective and professional delivery of verdicts on cases presented to the courts, the judicial system ought to inculcate stringent measures in the selection and training of judges, justices and other workforce that operates in the courts as this will professionalize these exercises that require utter expertise and knowhow. Imminently and apparently, the judges ought to have profound experience and qualification in law education. This ensures that only the adept personalities are employed in the judiciary system, which requires utterly complete qualities for its workforce. They, therefore, should have the correct credentials in the various law areas such as commercial law, intellectual assets among other law related areas. Still in these affiliations, there ought to be discipline and ethical s behavior in all handlings (Powers, 2002). To achieve correct behavior and conduct in the working procedures b y all the staff that works sin these courts. Thus, respective programs and policies instilling ethical working and correct code of conduct in the proceedings of the court should be initiated. Thus, these stipulations should encompass ethical working traits as punctuality, honesty, kindness, respect and many other virtues. Because of these policies, the court behaviors in administration will undoubtedly deliver successfully. In addition to the ethical guidelines, proper disciplinary measures also ought to be inculcated in the daily operations in the courts. In case of any vagaries of conduct in members of the workforce, the human resource branch in the courts should deliver the punishments, irrespective of the hierarchical conveniences. Additionally, increasing the number of law faculties and reinforcing them with respective facilities is another important practice in the operation of courts. Current issues in court administration In the daily life, court workforce is compelled to bow to pandemics that usually are detrimental to their working profile. These kinds of pandemic appear out of the blue. However, these emergency pandemics that bring about key quandaries in the working of courts are expected. Thus, the workers such as judges, lawyers and prosecutors fail to attend to their work effectively probably because one or several of their family members is affected by the particular problem and thus requires critical attention. This is a major pitfall that can lead to serious loss of time and critical quandaries where cases have to be stashed in the backlog for further consideration for hearing. This hampers the expected quick progression of case solving and resolutions hence undermining the delivery of the courts (Jones, 2003). To get to the solution to this naturally induced quandary, the judicial system departments in charge of the workers’ affairs ought to come to task and assist in correcting these problems that can be brought under control while taking care of their needs such as consolation and understanding. There needs to be inculcated an ingenious system of solving the workers’ problems while taking care of the cases to be solved. This means that when the problem, other personnel of equal qualifications critically affect one worker must be sent to take the vacancy and evade the delay of disputes that need to be solved. This will undoubtedly serve as a major reform in court administration and will obviously infer better results in terms of service delivery. Contemporarily, there exists a quandary with respect to service delivery by the magistrates or judges in the law courts. This quandary is brought about by the fact that it takes some of the judges a lot of time to validate cases and conduct hearings. In some cases, the magistrates or judges concerned take too long to give signature approvals to documents presented to them in good time. This successfully results into uncertainty to fix the dates that the customers should avail themselves to courts for hearings. When the documents are submitted to the magistrates, they are subject to inexplicable loss. They, therefore, have to be done from scratch and refilled (Powers, 2002). This laxity brings about dissatisfaction on the part of the complainants or generally, those who present cases to court. In other cases that do not require a lot of time to solve, judges adjourn the proceedings for long periods hampering immediate dispute resolution. Some of these unconfirmed court procedures ought to be overlooked and upgrade accordingly without delay or laxity. In other cases, there is unscrupulous postponement of cases where many accumulate with a huge number of plaintiffs demanding initial consideration. This leads into a backlog case and resultant sluggishness in operations. In addition, the pantry workforce confers a potential disadvantage whereby the speed in resolution of given cases is hampered. Having been faced by such potential predicaments sin operations, the judicial system ought to spell out potential strategies to increase the number of the workers, overlook efficiency in the workforce and scrutinize the entire affiliation based on performance. Another pressing contemporary quandary facing the court systems is the prevalence of multiple cases where the judges present entirely wrong unfair verdicts on innocent people. Based on the speculations and the fueled further investigations o the specific judges who had given irrational verdicts, it is true that some of these judges in the entire workforce have worked under briery and unfair dealings that are totally inexplicable or rather plausible regarding the code of conduct in work and ethical perspectives in the entire service delivery process (Powers, 2002). This major setback has seen scores of innocent individual taken into lockdown for crimes they barely committed. To counteract the pitfall that elicits negative perception to the entire judicial service, then court has to instill ethical promise oaths of office and ensure that the workforce in its jurisdiction employs no such dubious underhand methods of dispute resolutions. As a result the entire workforce are subjected under the jurisdiction of the law too such that when such irregularities occur in ruling, they are subjected to trial and can be convicted for performance of various crimes purported against the, primarily abuse of office. With such vile practices also, the judges are able to employ the use of original intent or judicial activism in their interpretation and application of the law in the entire court processes. Courthouse violence Courthouse violence is a prevalent issue nowadays in the courts. We have two main types of courthouse violence in a way that we observe premeditated or opportunistic and unpremeditated violence in courtrooms. The latter applies to the case \where individuals on opposite sides of the dispute resolve to vent their anger on their counterparts. This is an extremely perilous and detrimental to the safety of the people in the courtrooms (Jones, 2003). Therefore, dealing and counteracting the issue to bring for a viable solution in avoidance of courtroom violence is not a simple task to accomplish. If at all there is too much security surveillance in the courts during its operations, out rightly compromises the quality and prior perception of the judicial systems independent, full of fairness and impartial nature. Thus, the people can probably perceive the action as irrespective and non-acknowledgement of that fact. However, if the opposite is implemented and little surveillance inculcated in the courts, people can perceive that the judicial system is undermining the inherent security of the people in the courthouses and the workers of the judicial system in the specific areas where the court proceedings occur (Powers, 2002). Instillation of security and serenity is necessary in these premises without compromising into the judicial system values. The violence in the courthouses can also dig into the homes of the individuals who are in the courts. This is in an attempt of both groups to defend themselves and defend their purported innocence. This very critical and detrimental occurrence can transcend the boundaries of humanity where the individuals may commit murder. Thus, with the explicit and succinctly clear exposition on the issue of courthouse violence, the judicial system, in conjunction with the citizens ought to fight with dexterity but peacefully. The only probable counter measure against the courtroom violence saga is only intensifying security within the courtroom and maintaining tight security outside the courtroom premises. To achieve this king of high standard security, the courtrooms ought to be fitted with few entrances where violent people can emanate and cause havoc. The courtrooms also ought to be reinforced with metal detectors din an aim to detect hazardous weaponry such as guns, daggers and other perilous weapons. The judicial service affiliation ought to provide highly and intensively trained security officers who Mann the security operations, duress alarm fitting at all judges’ desks and intensive electronic surveillance within the courtroom to enhance footage capture from within the court premises and intercept any individuals suspected to be scheming any perilous plans. In case of plastic weaponry, such as dynamites, plastic guns and explosives, X-ray machines or rather police trained dogs would be the best choice to go for in controlling the prevalence of courtroom violence. This is because all the people in the courtroom are entitled to security and serenity in their deliberations (Janda, 2008). The judicial service arm of administration ought to provide adequate funds to the court security practitioners to aid in the reinforcement of then court premises with then metallic detectors and other security-oriented materials. Thus, this practice of reinforcement of courts with relevant security materials will undoubtedly result into service delivery in then law courts (Jones, 2003). One of the basic tenets of democracy is ensuring that every member of the public and generally, all citizens, are entitled to security and that justice ought to be accomplished in the general view of the entire public. Every individual bringing their cases to court ought to assume complete safety and the jurors, too, ought to be assured of complete safety and serenity in consideration of their cases in the entire court proceedings (Powers, 2002). The public, in addition, also should perceive and believe that the proceedings and deliberations will be inherently taken care of and the outcome by the judge is fair and justified according to the law of the land. Insufficient courtroom security undermines the peaceful aspect of the independent judiciary (Nadel, 2004). Without security, independence is barely possible. Adequate security equipment ought to be provided to the court security personnel to counteract the imminent violence. Security of judges away from then courthouses is v ital to protect them from attack and ensure that then judges work in a free environment free from intimidation and fear of being killed. Conclusion With the detailed exposition of the various critical aspects in the daily practices in a normal court, it is evident that courts are centers where civilians can have justice done through the jurisdiction given to the judges sin the judicial service workforce. Additionally, the courts can elicit hazards when courtroom violence ensues. Thus, it can lead to harm to various people such as the judges and then different parties being represented din the dispute resolution process. Various issues in the courts have also been acknowledged, those that affect the individual workforce and the entire judicial fraternity. Therefore, to ensure that all processes directed towards provision of justice in the courts are successful, the judicial system in the country should aim at enhancing those aspects that better the proceedings in the court dispute settlement processes (Janda, 2008). References Powers, S. (2002). The Least Dangerous Branch? : Consequences of Judicial Activism. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Janda, K. (2008).The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in a Global World, Brief Edition. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Jones, T. (2003). Court Security: A Guide for Post 9-11 Environments. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher. Nadel, B. (2004). Building Security: Handbook for Architectural Planning and Design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional. Read More