NCJ Number
84772
Date Published
1982
Length
17 pages
Annotation
Research shows that State court reform usually fails to produce important improvements in court behavior.
Abstract
Reform recommendations which have been supported in recent years include increased centralization and standardization of court structures and processes, full State funding for the courts, merit selection of judges, judicial discipline and removal, and centralized judicial rulemaking. Because court reform promises improved efficiency, quality, and fairness, it has strong political and popular appeal. Those supporting court reform include State and national legal organizations, the Federal Government, high-status lawyers, and middle-class reformers. Those opposing court reform include general practice and trial lawyers, judges and other court employees, political parties, and special interest groups. Although innovations in streamlining and consolidating courts and in increasing the State supreme courts' power to temporarily transfer judges to courts with backlogs have been widely adopted, State courts remain primarily managed and funded at the local level. Future reform efforts must offer more than mere rhetoric to gain support for proposed changes. A total of 24 references are provided.