The role of specialty courts Specialty courts are a big thing in the United States. They are a problem solving oriented court that are narrowly focused on within the jurisdiction. At first these types of courts were called designer courts or boutique courts which indicated the special nature of the court. Drug courts were made due to the amount of drug addicts that were going into jail or prison rather than treatment. Since then there are 3,000 drug courts in the United State, and then in addition there are 1,125 other problem solving courts such as mental health courts, gun courts, truancy courts, domestic violence courts etc (Neubauer).
Many of these specialized courts rely and function off of the therapeutic jurisdiction. Therefore, that means they follow 5 essential elements that include:
Immediate intervention
Non Adversarial adjudication
Hands-on judicial involvement
Treatment programs with clear rules and structured goals
A team approach that brings together the judge, prosecutors, defense counsel,
…show more content…
Some of these advantages include: judicial system efficiency, legal system efficiency, uniformity, expertise, improved case management, elimination of conflict and forum shopping, increase system of flexibility, administrative agency review mechanism, and consistency of administrative agency law(Zimmer). All of these make the speciality courts advantages. By having improved case management is really an advantage due to the fact the judge is an expertise on the subject matter, therefore it's easier on the judge to handle it's cases. On the counterpart, there are some disadvantages to speciality courts. The disadvantages are: inefficiency, judicial isolation, quality of judges, and public access(Zimmer). With judicial isolation it risk the likelihood of judges having a one sided view due to the fact they are more of specialist type of judge rather than a generalist
Specialty courts are formed in order to staff them with people who have a great deal of knowledge on whatever special type of cases that court handles. For instance: Juvenile courts handle only cases that involve the proper punishment and rehabilitation of youthful offenders. Probate courts handle disagreements among heirs concerning the dispersal of estates of deceased persons.
The title of Chapter 2 is "Criminal Courts, Pretrial Processes, and the Exclusionary Rule." The chapter begins with a description of the structure of the U.S. court system, which is a dual court system. A dual court system means that there are both federal- and state-level courts who operate within their own jurisdictions. The United States District Court is the trial court for the federal system.
The dynamic court believes that the court is successful and energetically involved in changing the social fabric of society. The dynamic court states three main reasons how the court reforms social behaviors in America. First, are the political, institutional, and economic independence the court hold from the other branches. The members of the federal court system are outside of the purview of the electorate and hold office for life tenure. They are not elected by the people, so the people cannot hold them electorally accountable for going outside of their precedent.
Lily Craymer November 8, 2017 Texas Politics County Court Judges vs Supreme Court Judges In Texas, County Court judges and Supreme Court judges both have the title of “judge” in their names, but what does that really mean? If someone introduces themselves with the title of a judge, it doesn’t give any specifics on what their public responsibilities are. Both positions have different levels of power, but are equally important. In order to reform Texas laws, one must know how it functions.
Diversion programs have become a prevalent form of justice in the Criminal Justice System. Diversion can be two things; diversion from jail or diversion from the legal system completely. Diversionary programs have been developed in the Criminal Justice System throughout its many levels for a multitude of reasons. Often, they are spurred on by practical concerns including, but not limited to, over-crowded prisons, the high cost of the criminal process, and as an alternative approach to dealing with those suffering from mental illnesses. Diversion may occur both before and after a trial and are aimed at avoiding the trial process (pre-trial) and incarceration (post-trial).
This model incorporated many different aspects of the judicial system such as judges, lawyers, probation officers, and social workers as well as traditional substance abuse treatment concepts.
Mental health courts handle people with mental illness who have been charged of a crime. Mental health court is defined as “a specialized court docket for certain defendants with mental illnesses” where the individual’s mental health is first evaluated (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2008, p.4). Then, judicial staff and mental health professionals decide a treatment plan for the person (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2008). Mental health court is an acceptable system because it allows people with mental illnesses to be treated differently than in a traditional court system.
Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.
3. Divert cases away from the court system wherever possible, use Alternative dispute and client counselling methods. 4. Offer courts a wide range of release options when defendants appear in courts. 5.
“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. ”(Martin Luther King, Jr.) Most people were racist but now since the civil rights have been established most have stopped being racist and moved on. Three supreme court case decisions influenced the civil rights movements by letting more and more poeple know what the Supreme Court was doing to African Americans,and of the unfair him crow laws:(Dred Scott v. Sanford,Plessy v. Ferguson,Brown v. Board of Education). Dred Scott v. Sanford Is a case that most people felt that Dred Scott had an unfair charge against him.
The three levels within the federal courts are: the U.S. Magistrate Courts, the U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. The magistrate courts are the lowest level and as such are limited to trying misdemeanors, setting bail amounts and assisting the district courts. The U.S. District Courts are the federal branch of original jurisdiction courts. These are responsible for criminal trials and giving guilty or not guilty verdicts. The U.S. Courts of Appeals are responsible for all the appeals from U.S. district courts.
Specialized Courts Specialized courts are commonly known as the problem-solving courts that promote positive reinforcement, support behavior modification, decrease victimization, and reduce recidivism. Examples of specialized courts include drug court and mental health courts. A community might benefit from establishing a specialized court such as a drug court because it follows a comprehensive model that concentrates on reducing criminal actions through treatment and rehabilitation services with the focus being on substance abuse addiction and identifying the cause without jeopardizing public safety and due process (Specialized Courts, 2013).
Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative. Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States and are confirmed on the advice and consent of the United States Senate.
Out of the three the courts are the most harmful to the criminal justice systems. Once the police have done their investigations and arrested all offenders involved it will be up to the court to decide whether the person is guilty or not. This is where the problem comes in. Many people have been judged wrongly in the courts.
[5] Common law works in a different way, the judges rather than the Parliament make common law or ‘judge-made law’. Considering criminal and civil cases, the judges take decisions based on the stare decisis principle (Latin “to stand by things decided”, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent [4]), deliver rulings and create precedents, thus applying the law to real life situations. Therefore, the value of the precedent is very high in the English Common Law system. The strengths of common law