Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:33 am
Time: 1:33 am
Results for court reform
8 results foundAuthor: Western Australia. Law Reform Commission Title: Court Intervention Programs: Final Report Summary: This final report is divided into six chapters. Chapter One explains the Commission’s approach to reform, in particular, the need for legislative and policy reform to support the continued operation of court intervention programs and the Commission’s guiding principles for reform. Chapter Two (which contains the majority of the Commission’s recommendations) deals with the legal and policy issues that are relevant to all court intervention programs. Specific recommendations dealing with court intervention programs addressing drug and alcohol dependency are discussed in Chapter Three. Chapter Four considers recommendations in relation to mental impairment court intervention programs and Chapter Five considers recommendations in relation to family violence court intervention programs. Finally, recommendations in relation to general court intervention programs are contained in Chapter Six. The Final Report is intended to be read in conjunction with the Commission’s Consultation Paper, which describes how various court intervention programs operate and provides the research and analysis that support the Commission’s final recommendations. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication, the Final Report sets out the Commission’s conclusions and fi nal recommendations without repeating all of the descriptive material in the Consultation Paper. The Commission has made a total of 37 recommendations for reform in this Final Report. A list of recommendations is contained in Appendix A. For ease of reference, a list of recommendations that require legislative amendment is set out in Appendix B. Details: Perth: Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, 2009. 152p. Source: Internet Resource: Project No. 96: Accessed July 7, 2011 at: http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/P96-FR.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/P96-FR.pdf Shelf Number: 121999 Keywords: Court ReformDomestic Violence CourtsDrug CourtsMental Health CourtsProblem-Oriented Courts (Australia)Sentencing |
Author: Giblin, Matthew J. Title: Understanding Influence Across Justice Agencies: The Spread of "Community Reforms" from Law Enforcement to Prosecutor Summary: Within the last few decades, police departments and prosecutors' offices innovated with new policies and practices, particularly those stressing the community (i.e., community policing, community prosecution). Although organizational innovation has been empirically researched within the discipline of criminal justice, most of these studies focused on the police in isolation from the other components of the criminal justice system. These valuable studies have identified several factors that are associated with innovation including those both internal and external to organizations, but researchers have rarely considered the influence of the policies and practices of other criminal justice agencies. Police and prosecutors, even though interconnected and part of the same system, are studied individually and the cross-component effects of other agencies within the criminal justice system have not received much attention in the literature. This study explores the innovation of community prosecution using organizational predictors typically associated with innovation while also including measures of community policing within the jurisdiction of the prosecutors' offices. Community policing practices of the agencies within the jurisdiction are potentially powerful influences on community prosecution. Using data from the 2001 and 2005 waves of the National Prosecutors Survey and the 2000 and 2003 waves of the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics survey, analyses show that community reforms are not connected across system components. Several possible explanations are offered to account for these findings. Details: Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2014. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 19, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/245945.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/245945.pdf Shelf Number: 132523 Keywords: Community JusticeCommunity PolicingCommunity ProsecutionCourt ReformPartnershipsProsecutors |
Author: Roth, Charles Title: Order in the Court: Commonsense Solutions to Improve Efficiency and Fairness in the Immigration Court Summary: The immigration court system is in crisis. Immigration judges with insufficient resources are forced to cope with an enormous and increasing backlog. Bona fide asylum seekers and other noncitizens with viable claims wait years to have their cases heard, and the hearings often are rushed and flawed. With the recently launched "rocket dockets" expediting cases of Central American children, many hearings will be delayed further and grow even more rushed and flawed. But unlike the humanitarian crisis driving these children to seek safety in the United States or the crisis of long overdue comprehensive immigration reform, the procedural crisis of the immigration courts can be readily addressed. With basic procedural reforms, the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees the immigration courts, can increase the system's efficiency and provide a higher quality of adjudication at little or no additional cost to taxpayers. These reforms would reduce unnecessary hearing continuances and help administrative court judges to make more deliberate and informed rulings, thereby avoiding costly federal appeals. These recommendations draw on exhaustive research of the immigration court and other court systems and on the experience of attorneys at Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), who practice extensively in the immigration courts. The findings complement those of other recent reports on immigration adjudications by focusing on narrow improvements to the immigration court system that the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can implement without substantial additional resources. Details: Chicago: National Immigrant Justice Center, 2014. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 15, 2014 at: http://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Order%20in%20the%20Courts%20-%20Immigration%20Court%20Reform%20White%20Paper%20October%202014%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Order%20in%20the%20Courts%20-%20Immigration%20Court%20Reform%20White%20Paper%20October%202014%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 133915 Keywords: Asylum SeekersCourt ReformIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration Courts (U.S.)Immigration PolicyImmigration Reform |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon Title: Roadblock to Reform: District Attorneys, Elections, and the Criminal Justice Status Quo Summary: District attorneys (DAs) are arguably the most powerful people in the criminal justice system, but the public doesn't know who they are. Why does this matter? In our latest report, Roadblocks to Reform, we identify district attorneys as a central barrier to criminal justice reform. There is a growing national consensus that America's criminal justice system has core problems. We lead the world in the use of incarceration, while prisons are the most expensive and least effective public safety intervention. Despite increased media coverage of deeply troubling criminal justice issues and attention from the public and other elected officials, the role of district attorneys gets little attention. Although police are responsible for arrests, prosecutors in district attorneys' offices have a tremendous amount of responsibility in determining people's fate once they enter the system. DAs determine: - whether someone gets access to drug treatment or is prosecuted - whether a young person is kept in the juvenile justice system or prosecuted in the adult system where they are much more likely to be hurt and to re-offend. - whether to seek the death penalty. DAs influence: - the extent of racial disparity in sentencing. - whether a police officer is charged in a case of misconduct. In Oregon, district attorneys are elected leaders. But over the past ten years, 78% of DAs in Oregon ran unopposed. That means nearly eight out of 10 district attorney races were over before they began. In a healthy democracy, no elected official should be guaranteed reelection. The report also examines the role gubernatorial appointments play in selecting interim DAs. Nearly half of our existing DAs initially enter office through gubernatorial appointments which have happened quietly, flying under the radar of the public. Meanwhile, Oregon's District Attorney Association has been one of the primary opponents to any progressive criminal justice reform in the state. Roadblocks to Reform examines how district attorney elections and appointments lock in the criminal justice status quo, preventing much needed progress and public engagement. The report also includes recommendations for changing these dynamics. This report is a must read for people concerned with addressing mass criminalization and over incarceration in Oregon as well as severe racial disparity in the criminal justice system. District attorneys need to be advocates for change, but a range of dynamics contribute to DAs playing a very different role. Encouraging public engagement with district attorneys and pushing for greater prosecutorial accountability will be decisive factors in solving the serious problems in our criminal justice system. Details: Portland: ACLU of Oregon, 2016. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2016 at: http://aclu-or.org/sites/default/files/Roadblocks_to_Reform_Report_ACLUOR.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://aclu-or.org/sites/default/files/Roadblocks_to_Reform_Report_ACLUOR.pdf Shelf Number: 138839 Keywords: Court ReformCriminal Justice ReformDistrict Attorneys |
Author: Smith, Alisa Title: Rush to Judgment: How South Carolina's Summary Courts Fail to Protect Constitutional Rights Summary: In response to disturbing stories of constitutional violations uncovered by NACDL and ACLU attorneys documented in 2016's Summary Injustice report (below), NACDL undertook additional investigation of South Carolina's summary courts. Law students and legal professionals gathered information about court proceedings in five South Carolina counties over three months in the winter and spring of 2016, the results of which are published in this follow-up report. Each day, the team observed court hearings in various venues, observing individuals charged with everything from shoplifting to driving offenses to unlawful possession of tobacco and alcohol. In every court studied for this report, the team found egregious, repeated constitutional violations happening daily and in hundreds of cases. In the months of court watching and data collection, researchers documented numerous findings, all of which are set forth in the Rush to Judgment report. Findings from this study and Summary Injustice lead NACDL to suggest the following five recommendations for reform to ensure that South Carolina's courts operate in accordance with constitutional mandates and guarantee procedural justice for those whose lives will forever be altered as a result of a criminal adjudication: Staff South Carolina’s summary courts with prosecutors and public defenders and ensure that courts are presided over by judges who are licensed attorneys. Reduce the caseload of magistrate and municipal courts by decriminalizing traffic offenses. Reduce fines and fees, and consider alternative sanctions for those who cannot afford to pay. Increase uniform reporting of criminal and traffic cases in summary courts to include data regarding whether defendants had counsel and whether and how defendants were informed of their rights. Enact uniform procedures for magistrate and municipal courts regarding advisement of rights and plea colloquies. Ensure that all defendants understand their rights and the direct and collateral consequences of a guilty plea or verdict. Details: Washington, DC: National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 2017. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2017 at: https://www.nacdl.org/summaryinjustice/ Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.nacdl.org/summaryinjustice/ Shelf Number: 145011 Keywords: Constitutional RightsCourt ReformCriminal CourtsCriminal DefenseDue ProcessMagistrate CourtsMunicipal CourtsSummary Courts |
Author: Glod, Greg Title: Balancing the Scales of Due Process: The Conservative Case for Grand Jury Reform in Texas Summary: This paper discusses the history of the American grand jury system, Texas' grand jury system, areas within the status quo where procedural safeguards do not properly protect the liberties of Texans, and what other states have done to bolster their grand jury systems. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2016. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed February 22, 2017 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/2016-10-PP22-GrandJuryReform-CLG-GregGlod-1-.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/2016-10-PP22-GrandJuryReform-CLG-GregGlod-1-.pdf Shelf Number: 144847 Keywords: Court ReformDue ProcessGrand Jury System |
Author: Centre for Justice Innovation Title: Building Trust: How our courts can improve the criminal court experience for Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic defendants Summary: Widespread distrust among British-born Black, Asian and Minority ethnic (BAME) people towards the British justice system is having a negative impact on the legitimacy of our criminal courts. Our report looks at the origins of the lack of trust in the system, why perceptions of fairness and trust in the justice system matter and what can be done to improve the experience of court for BAME defendants. Why trust matters Trust in the fairness of our courts is key to the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Our courts are charged with guaranteeing our fair and equal treatment before the law.While the British judicial system has a reputation as one of the fairest in the world, our criminal justice system does not command the trust of our Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) citizens. A majority (51%) of British-born BAME people believe that the criminal justice system discriminates against particular groups and individuals, compared to only 35% of the British-born white population. This lack of trust has two specific negative consequences: It may be leading to BAME defendants receiving more severe sentences by making them less likely to plead guilty. Defendants who plead guilty at the first opportunity receive a one-third reduction in their sentence. But male BAME defendants are 52% more likely to plead not guilty in Crown Courts than similar white defendants. Perceptions of unfair treatment within the court process and lower levels of trust in the courts are likely to increase the chances that BAME offenders will go on to offend again. How to build trust We reviewed approaches to building trust and tackling racial disparity in four similar countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA. Having analysed the way other countries address this issue, our report recommends that our courts can improve the experience of court in the following ways: Ministry of Justice should work with Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service(HMCTS) can expand the existing data on racial disparity in the adult criminal court system. The Ministry of Justice should require each local justice area bring together agencies from across the criminal justice system to look at their local rates of racial disparity and produce action plans. HMCTS should ensure that making the court process feel fairer for all defendants is at the heart of its court reform programme by providing clearer explanations of the court process, training judges, magistrates and court staff in better courtroom engagement and introducing more local, pop-up courts in civic buildings in accessible locations. HMCTS court reform programme should ensure that the criminal court system engages and understands the communities within which it works by introducing ways of measuring the perceptions of fairness of victims, witnesses, and defendants in the court process. Details: London: Centre for Justice Innovation, 2017. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2017 at: http://justiceinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Building-Trust.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://justiceinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Building-Trust.pdf Shelf Number: 144733 Keywords: BiasCourt ReformCriminal CourtCriminal DefendantsMinority GroupsRacial DiscriminationRacial DisparitiesTrust |
Author: Cortes, Nancy G. Title: Perspectives on Mexico's Criminal Justice System: What Do Its Operators Think? Survey of Judges, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders Summary: Justice in Mexico, a research and public policy program based at the University of San Diego, released the English version of the latest publication in the Justiciabarometro series, Justiciabarometro 2016- Perspectives on Mexico's Criminal Justice System: What do its operators think?, thanks to the generous funding from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The 2016 Justiciabarometro provides a comparative analysis of the justice system operators' demographics and perspectives, as well as comparisons to similar data collected in 2010. Survey participants included 288 judges, 279 prosecutors, and 127 public defenders in 11 Mexican states, with a response rate of 56%, a 2.4% margin of error, and a 95% confidence interval. Details: San Diego: Justice in Mexico, Department of Political Science & International Relations, University of San Diego, 2017. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2017 at: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2016-Justiciabarometro_English-Version_Online.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Mexico URL: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2016-Justiciabarometro_English-Version_Online.pdf Shelf Number: 145065 Keywords: Court ReformCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsJudgesProsecutorsPublic Defenders |