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
- Location, Location, Location: Interdistrict and Intercircuit Variation in Sentencing Outcomes for Federal Drug-Trafficking Offenses
- Substance use treatment completion does not mediate the relationship between family treatment court participation and reunification: Results from five courts in the Southwestern U.S.
- Examining the Multifaceted Impacts of Drug Decriminalization on Public Safety, Law Enforcement, and Prosecutorial Discretion