Court Management Trends

Court Management Trends
Name
Institution
Course
Professor
Date Court Management Trends The Implementation of Specialized or Alternative Courts Specialized/alternative courts focus on specific aspects of offenses or the individual committing the offense. This approach is primarily used in the case of repeat or violent offenders to try and address the root causes of such behavior. Alternative courts aim to expedite the processing of such cases to reduce caseloads while further providing therapeutic approaches to address the underlying causes and reduce criminal offending (Baum, 2011). These courts are mainly used to cover cases concerning drug use or domestic violence cases that are serious but can be solved through other means. Compared to traditional courts, specialized courts are diverse, meaning that they vary from state or region. This means that the interpretations made regarding the offenses may differ. While this is important due to the regional characteristics that allow for tailor-made solutions for a specific area, it challenges developing a standard procedure for the cases it solves (Guzmán, 2012). Some courts may rely on one judge. Others may use more judges in decision-making, while other courts may include specialized individuals to offer advisory services. Therefore, defining the limitations and scope of such specialized courts becomes problematic in the long run. Apart from that, specialized courts such as drug courts are considered ‘special’ since only a select number of individuals can access them. As a result, they affect the principle of equality that guarantees every individual equal access in the judicial system. Such courts thus run parallel to the traditional court system causing discrepancies in some jurisdictions (Guzmán, 2012). Consequently, two individuals who may have committed the same crime in the same area may be treated to two different systems with significantly different outcomes.   Court Consolidation and Restructuring of Victim Rights Laws             Court consolidation refers to the development of uniform standards by merging different courts with similar functions into a singular unit. The aim of consolidation lies in eliminating any forms of overlapping jurisdictions of courts, reducing conflicting rulings in courts, and the optimal use and deployment of judges in the courts (Neate, 2015). Therefore, reducing the number of trial court types leads to increased consolidation in a region. While court consolidation is essential, it has a significant effect on both the administrative and other aspects involved in running the consolidated courts. Consolidation affects convenience to the public since some individuals may have to travel long distances to reach a court. Operating costs increase significantly...