NCJ Number
31146
Journal
Public Administration Review Volume: 35 Issue: 6 Dated: (NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1975) Pages: 619-624
Date Published
1975
Length
6 pages
Annotation
THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES A STATISTICAL STUDY DESIGNED TO DETERMINE WHETHER JUDICIAL INNOVATIONS ARE PART OF A GENERAL STATE PROPENSITY TO INNOVATE AND TO ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ONE INNOVATION - STATE COURT MANAGERS.
Abstract
NINE JUDICIAL INNOVATIONS ARE EXAMINED - MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE, SERVICE AFTER RETIREMENT, UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, UNIFIED BAR, JUDICIAL COMPENSATION COMMISSION, JUDICIAL QUALIFICATION COMMISSION, OFFICE OF STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, 1972 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, AND OPERATION UNDER MODERN RULES OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROCEDURE. LESS THAN HALF (4 OF 9) OF THE JUDICIAL INNOVATIONS WERE FOUND TO BE RELATED TO THE PROPENSITY OF STATES TO INITIATE INNOVATIONS IN GENERAL. FURTHERMORE, NEED FOR SERVICES, AS MEASURED BY THE CRIME RATE, WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ABILITY OF A STATE TO AFFORD INNOVATIONS IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT JUDICIAL REFORMS WOULD BE INSTITUTED. THIS CRIME RATE AND A GENERAL COMMITMENT TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE WAS RELATED TO TWO JUDICIAL INNOVATIONS - THE PRESENCE OF A UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM AND AN OFFICE OF STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR. COURT ADMINISTRATORS, PARTICULARLY THOSE IN STATES WHICH HAVE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEMS AND WHICH SPECIFICALLY DELEGATE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, WERE FOUND TO BE SUCCESSFUL FINANCIAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JUDICIARY. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)