Arizona Supreme Court Management Policy and Practice Essay Example

of the operation and development of the offices of Judicial Support (Common Services), of each of the constituencies and Judicial Complexes at the state level.

Overview of Court Services and Programs on their effectiveness

It is all about the configuration of structures, work processes, division of roles and allocation of operational skills, necessary for the product to be delivered by the courts (judicial decisions), can be generated in the most effective and efficient, which means deciding the cases, with the highest quality and speed possible (Segal Benesh & Spieth, 2005). It is implemented a new active subject of crime, the legal person, with the purpose of combating organized crime and preventing these legal figures from being used to maintain the wealth of criminals, evade responsibilities and generate impunity.

Implement changes for improvement of court services

Many changes have been made in the judicial system to promote efficiency and improve court services including court supervision, provision, and management of resources and funding. As is well known, the approval of these reforms aims to improve the functioning of the different institutions that integrate the criminal justice system in Arizona, in charge of public security, procurement, and justice, as well as social reinsertion (Hartman et al., 2004). Of the various constitutional changes approved by the justice system, one of the most noteworthy in the justice sub-system is the one related to the introduction of oral trials. The introduction of oral trials implies a modification of the different components that make up the criminal justice system, by replacing the mixed criminal model with a predominantly accusatory and oral one, governed by the procedural principles of publicity, contradiction, and concentration.

In the case of juvenile

cases, there is the duty of States to establish monitoring and oversight mechanisms that can periodically evaluate the juvenile justice system (Segal, Benesh & Spieth, 2005). The evaluation should cover all aspects of the juvenile justice system, including police intervention; the performance of judges and the performance of officials responsible for the enforcement of custodial or non-custodial measures and the follow-up of children after their release. The effectiveness of the programs established to guarantee the contact of the children with their family and their community, as well as to facilitate the reintegration of children who were hospitalized in addition to the functioning of the centers in which the custodial sentences are executed, among other aspects.

Objectives

To reduce case backlog

Monitoring is carried out to analyze the implementation of criminal procedural reform in the province and the current functioning of criminal justice. The evaluation was based on surveys and interviews with all actors in the system (judges and civil servants, the judicial branch, guild, specialized journalists, security forces, trial lawyers), as well as observation of the hearings for and the analysis of the statistical data of the Supreme Court of Justice.

To shorten times for court hearings to be calendared and decisions to be rendered

The resources allocated are optimized within the justice system, and specific deadlines are shortened. Optimizing the management and resources the system has, allows an efficient service to the society. In this regard, the UN Economic and Social Council has recommended the establishment of data collection and information systems on juvenile justice with respect to minors in conflict with the law, using as a guide the Manual for the measurement of indicators on juvenile justice (Hartman

et al., 2004). The Committee notes that the questionnaire submitted to States in connection with the preparation of this report was closely related to the indicators as mentioned above, and yet the information received on some the questions were either brief or non-existent. It suggests that much of the region still lacks effective mechanisms for collecting information on the juvenile justice system by these indicators.

To minimize costs of court systems expansion

The expansion of court systems is always a thorough and cost-intensive process. To minimize the impact of these costs, one possible proposition is that the judicial system should make a more extensive and strategic use of the New Information and Communication Technologies (NICT) to shorten communication deadlines between departments. In addition to this, the system should allow those involved more interference in the process through virtual platforms. In his opinion, the court system should also reduce the administrative functions of its judges, since in many cases they impede its jurisdictional function.

To minimize the need for funding new programs

According to the Supreme Court, part of the proceeds from the tax may be used for other purposes in the justice system. The excess of tax revenues can be reassigned to a reserve fund or the Public Treasury and, therefore, finally, to the General State Budgets. Also, the court points out that the inapplicability of these tax measures does not call into question the aid since the State must complete the difference between economic income and the costs incurred by it for the fulfillment of its public service obligations.

To partnership with private organizations and resources

Detailing the specific duties and functions of private organizations in justice systems may be

an effective means of enhancing the enforcement of laws aimed at ending juvenile criminal offenses. Many organizations can be included in the state’s laws and specific provisions related to enforcement of justice by the courts.

Courts’ Budget & Costs of Services

Federal Level Funding

The Arizona Supreme Court is entitled to funding and budgetary allocation from the federal government. This funding must have a budgetary counterpart that allows the judiciary to attend its functions in a timely, agile, transparent, predictable, impartial and independent manner. This is done within a framework of economic rationality focused both on the cost or benefit ratio of Interests at stake in each particular case as well as in the collective values and interests of the national and supranational judicial system as a functional set.

State Level Funding

The state of Arizona is also responsible for financing departments of the court system and various obligations including reform. Judicial reform and it’s financing, in particular, involves the creative approach of a new organization with an integrationist orientation, which must be firm and progressive, and be fed back through the same dynamism that the process of permanent evolution brings to functional independence and financial autarchy.

Community Support

Its general objective is to provide social and community support which allows users with operational difficulties to get access to proper court systems, avoiding situations of risk of marginalization or institutionalization. As well as offering support and support to improve the engagement and linkage with the network of court resources, and Social Services.

Mediation Services

Victim-Offender Mediation (VOM)

Mediation, in cases where it is possible and desirable, involves suspending the traditional criminal process, to try to find an alternative solution, through the intervention of an expert

third party, the mediator, who brings the victim and delinquent into relation to active participation. The mediator personally gets involved in a dialogue for the solution to the damage generated, in a process mutually enriching for both. The first allows him to understand the underlying causes of that form of conflict that involves the crime or fault, and the second confronts him with the consequences of his behavior and the need to take responsibility for the damage caused.

The jurisdiction of juvenile courts should be retained in any action with a view to reforming the judicial system of juveniles under the age of 18. According to Arizona courts system, juvenile court judges must maintain and exercise their discretion to refer juvenile offenders charged with serious crimes to the adult court. The Arizona state court system believes that parents can be held accountable for the financial responsibility of their children's actions. Among the main weaknesses of juvenile justice systems on the continent is the lack of effective means to file complaints of alleged violations in different instances of justice, from the intervention of the police to the execution of sentences.

Rehabilitation programs for juvenile offenders: Education, vocational training, and employment counseling.

A rehabilitation program includes education, vocational training, ability to get work and counseling, with a reconciliation component between the victim and the aggressor. Programs aimed at the rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents guarantee equitable treatment of all juvenile offenders regardless of their racial or economic status. In addition, the anonymity of all juvenile offenders who have allegedly committed a crime and who remain under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court is enabled. The confidentiality of court proceedings and records,

under the stipulation that relevant juvenile justice officials are required to disclose to law enforcement agencies and school districts the name of any juvenile offender who was fourteen years or older Convicted of a serious or violent crime (Hartman et al. 2004).

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Crime Prevention invites all community business groups to create programs to help at-risk youth develop skills before engaging in criminal activity or committing crimes resulting from state or condition. One of the programs is related to the construction industry. The Home Builders Institute created the CRAFT (Community Restitution and Apprenticeship-Focused Training) Project which offers community-oriented training, reinsertion, and learning. The goal of the scheme is to offer young people with social skills and job search, in addition to learning a certified craft in the construction area.

Administrative Office of the Courts’ Challenges

Program development

One of the most significant mechanisms is the one that provides for a regular system of inspections and visits to centers where custodial sentences are executed by independent institutions, a mechanism that should be established in addition to the evaluation carried out by the authorities Administrative and judicial aspects of the State (Burgan, 2007). Program development is a mechanism that would periodically monitor the conditions of detention as well as the physical and emotional condition of detained children.

Training and credentialing of mediators

Training programs for mediators must be undertaken to guarantee expert services. The mediator must be in possession of an official university degree or higher vocational training and must have specific training to practice mediation. This will be acquired through the performance of one or more specific courses given by duly accredited institutions, which will be valid

for the exercise of the mediating activity in any part of the national territory. The mediator must take out an equivalent insurance or guarantee that covers the civil responsibility derived from its action in the conflicts in which it intervenes.

Supportive Community Resources

When an offender violates any specific condition of the terms of his probation or domestic detention, this may directly affect the community. The matter is undoubted of social interest, since the crisis of the current conception of the Criminal Law, its failure to satisfy the interests of the victims and the objective of avoiding recidivism is manifest. There is, therefore, the need for community resources to be allocated to promote the Supreme Court (Burgan, 2007). This is but another example of the most general crisis of that Napoleonic state, omnipotent and solver of all the problems, and of the necessity to give back to the own civil society the protagonism and responsibility in the solution of the conflicts.

Case flow and records management: court hearings

Also, beyond the mechanisms for lodging complaints and complaints, the Arizona Commission considers that the effective functioning of independent mechanisms for monitoring juvenile justice systems is indispensable. The Arizona systems for recording information that systematizes available data and indicators on juvenile justice, conducting periodic evaluations of the functioning of the juvenile justice system are also indispensable. They are important in correcting the rules of the complaint, generating violations of children's rights, and formulating public policies on juvenile justice (Burgan, 2007). The commission will then refer to the principles of prevention, investigation, and punishment of the human rights of children under the jurisdiction.

Cases’ Security issues

The Arizona Commission stresses the importance of counties

producing information and indicators with respect to juvenile justice systems and security to or intending to improving their management and enabling their proper supervision (Shapiro, 2011). Moreover, the Arizona Commission considers that the systematic collection of information on juvenile justice systems is an essential tool for the planning, formulation, and evaluation of public policies in this area. To this end, it is advisable for States to make use of the documents that have been prepared by United Nations bodies to facilitate the use of the criteria and indicators that allow an appropriate analysis of the information gathered in juvenile justice.

Keys to Success

Support from state and federal governments

Moreover, in other States where complaints mechanisms exist, it is common that they have not been investigated with the speed, seriousness, and effectiveness of the situation, which is again the lack of criminal, civil and administrative responsibility (Shultz, 2005). Those that are responsible for violating the rights of children accused or convicted of infringing a criminal law. In this regard, experts in the field have identified a culture of impunity and tolerance of violence against children.

Support from the community

To ensure the success of the programs, there is a need for community-based education and treatment programs (except for serious, habitual, or violent offenders) to ensure successful reintegration into the community (Shultz, 2005). Confinement of juvenile offenders who have committed crimes described in the Arizona State Welfare and Institutions Code when it is necessary to protect the offender, the person or property of a third party. It is necessary to ensure that the offender does not avoid judicial jurisdiction.

Support from law enforcement and courts administrative staff

In order to effectively address juvenile

crimes, national laws and action plans should require the participation and coordination of multiple sectors and groups, both public and private. The police and other law enforcement officials have a major role to play in this respect (Shultz, 2005). The quality of law enforcement is fundamental to the application. Criminal activities against innocent civilians should be thoroughly investigated and accurately documented.

Conclusion

In essence, it can be said that mediation in the criminal field has already been legally recognized in our legislation: In the state Criminal Law of Minors, which has been implemented with great success. It is true that there are facets of such a law, in relation to very serious crimes, which have been very controversial and have given rise to a great media flutter, and that there are reasons to desire a reform of the same in that area. But this should not prevent the recognition that, in the rest, the application of the same and the result in juvenile delinquency of the innovative measures that it establishes has been positive. In this area, mediation has also been successfully applied in this area.

References

1. Shapiro, I. (2011). Cato Supreme Court Review 2010-2011. Lanham: Cato Institute.
2. Lesly, J. D., & Arizona. (2013). the Arizona State Constitution.
3. Hartman, G. R., Mersey, R. M., Tate, C. L., & United States. (2004). Landmark Supreme Court cases: The most influential decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Facts on File.
4. Shultz, D. (2005). The encyclopedia of the Supreme Court. New York: Facts on File.
5. Segal, J. A., Benesh, S. C., & Spieth, H. J. (2005). The Supreme Court in the American legal system. Cambridge u.a.: Cambridge
   

University Press.