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
- Mock Jurors’ Evaluations of Eyewitness Identification Evidence Based on Appearance Change and Associated Instructions
- Prevalence of Fentanyl and Its Analogues in a Court-Ordered Mandatory Drug Testing Population
- How Important is Developmental Maturity in Assessing Whether Adolescents Will Share True or False Accounts of a First Offense in Legal Interactions?