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
- Final Report of the Cross-Site Evaluation of the Juvenile Drug Treatment Court (JDTC) Guidelines: Executive Summary
- Criminal Orders of Protection for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence, Future System Engagement, and Well-Being: Understanding the Importance of Prior Abusive Relationships
- The Recursive Relationship Between Substance Abuse, Prostitution, and Incarceration: Voices From a Long-Term Cohort of Women