It is argued that unification can be best understood as an effort to define the courts as formal organizations. An assessment of the impact of such changes, therefore, must take account of alternative forms for structuring a judicial system. The field work demonstrated that no simple organizational structure will meet equally well all three types of goals, that is, improved quality of justice, better court management and enhanced political position. Moreover, the two dimensions at the heart of organizational design -- centralization and consolidation -- had independent, sometimes conflicting effects. Finally, the effect of any structural design depends, in large measure, on the type of adjudicatory process involved. (Author abstract)
Downloads
Similar Publications
- Assessing the Relationship Between Treatment Quality, Matching and Dosage and Juvenile Justice Outcomes Among Youth With Co-Occurring Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders
- Bridging the Gap Between Prosecutors' Cases and Victims' Biographies in the Criminal Justice System Through Shared Emotions
- Brief report: Synthetic cannabinoid use among military personnel