Court Reform On Trial

COURT REFORM ON TRIAL is a recognized study of innovation in the process of criminal justice, and why it so often fails--despite the best intentions of judges, administrators, and reformers. The arc of innovation and disappointment is analyzed through such programs as bail reform, pretrial diversion, speedy trials, and determinate sentencing. The much-maligned system of plea bargaining shifts power to prosecutors away from judges, and formal trials recede in importance--but is that really the problem? Perhaps failure lies in unrealistic expectations, splintered systems and decisionmaking, waning political will, unempowered constituencies, and reformers' hubris. Feeley analyzes the persistent failure and proposes insightful pathways out of the cycle. First commissioned as a study in the influential Twentieth Century Fund series, the book is accessible for today's readers as part of the Classics of Law & Society series of Quid Pro Books. It adds a reflective preface by the author and a new foreword by Greg Berman, Executive Director of the Center for Court Innovation. Calling it an "intellectual touchstone" that's "brimming with energy not resignation," Berman writes that the book "has all of the hallmarks of Feeley's best work. Lucid prose. Idiosyncratic analysis. A willingness to speak truth to vested interests. And a commitment to describing the way the world actually works from a ground-level perspective--as opposed to the official versions of how systems theoretically should function." New ebook edition features active TOC, linked Notes, and proper formatting in a modern digital presentation.

Analyzes the process of change in the criminal court system, examines the reasons why change usually fails, and provides suggestions for workable and successful reformations

In this lively and persuasive critique, Franklin Strier doesn't simply describe problems with the American trial system; he proposes reforms. He offers a detailed blueprint of how to improve our basic adversarial system while blunting its excesses and inequities. Strier points out that the jury system was originally intended to diffuse the power of the government, but criticizes the method by which jurors are selected, patronized, and manipulated. Among his suggestions: eliminate peremptory challenges, give jurors the authority, and judges the responsibility, to ask questions of witnesses, and use neutral expert witnesses.

It is hardly a revelation to say that in the Soviet Union, law served not as the foundation of government but as an instrument of rule, or that the judiciary in that country was highly dependent upon political authority. Yet, experience shows that effective democracies and market economies alike require courts that are independent and trusted. In Courts and Transition in Russia, Solomon and Foglesong analyze the state and operation of the courts in Russia and the in some ways remarkable progress of their reform since the end of Soviet power. Particular attention is paid to the struggles of reformers to develop judicial independence and to extend the jurisdiction of the courts to include constitutional and administrative disputes as well as supervision of pretrial investigations. The authors then outline what can and should be done to make courts in Russia autonomous, powerful, reliable, efficient, accessible and fair. The book draws upon extensive field research in Russia, including the results of a lengthy questionnaire distributed to district court judges throughout Russian Federation.Written in a clear and direct manner, Courts and Transition in Russia should appeal to anyone interested in law, politics, or business in Russia ? scholars and practitioners alike ? as well as to students of comparative law, legal transition, and courts in new democracies.

This title explores the Chinese judicial system and its operations in the Rebulican era. It offers an analysis of how judicial reform initiatives were envisioned and pursued by the central government from 1901 through 1937, how the various initiatives were implemented at the provincial and county levels, and much more.

One of the most important but least examined aspects of the Canadian judicial system is the dual structure of civil and criminal trial courts. Canada's Trial Courts examines the co-existence, in every province, of superior courts (presided over by federally appointed judges) and 'lower' courts (staffed by provincially appointed judges). Combining both political and legal analysis, this is the first book to provide an in depth study of the evolution and operation of Canada's trial courts. This collection of essays begins with an exploration of the constitutional origins of Canada's integrated court system and the failure of federal and provincial governments to cooperate in its development. Following are discussions of a number of contemporary reform projects in various jurisdictions, including Quebec, Nova Scotia, Alberta, and Nunavut, as well as examinations of competing visions of how Canada's trial courts should be organized in the future. To put the issue in a comparative perspective, the concluding section provides examples of how trial courts have been restructured in the United Kingdom and the state of California. Proposing a range of practical alternatives to the present system, the volume offers a ground-breaking legal analysis that addresses constitutional obstacles to trial court reform, and assesses the political factors that influence reform at the judicial level. Featuring distinguished contributors from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds, Canada's Trial Courts offers a comprehensive and up-to-date examination of an important but neglected issue that ultimately has a profound impact on the quality of justice that Canadians experience.

"One thing is clear. Courts came alive in the twentieth century and made changes that could not have been envisioned as late as World War II." From Chapter 6 Creating the Judicial Branch: The Unfinished Reform describes and assesses a recent historical phenomenon, the creation of administratively and organizationally coherent judicial systems within state government. Before 1950, the state judicial branch of government existed mostly in concept, not in operational reality. After 1950, state judges, the organized bar, and many students of the judiciary took a hard look at the way state courts were organized and managed. They concluded that state courts, particularly the trial courts, were externally dominated, highly disorganized, often unprofessional, and poorly managed, to the point where the integrity of the state courts was being seriously undermined. State after state initiated court reforms and brought about many remarkable improvements. Courts were caught up in a reform wave that swept all three branches of state government but took a unique form in the courts. Unlike the executive and legislative branches, the state courts were not simply seizing management control of their own domain but literally creating a third branch of government. They sought this objective by integrating the various components of the state judiciary into a more coherent whole and generally upgrading the level of professionalism and the quality of justice.