Traditional and Practical Approaches
Through the traditional approach, the courts would focus on collection of important evidence that would help towards ensuring that the decisions made within the court match the overall expectations from all parties involved. Crandall (2014) argues that a traditional approach relies on the understanding and close review of the evidence presented as part of the problem. The courts system has the mandate of maintaining justice and fairness in any decision that it make especially when faced with an underlying problem. From that perspective, it would be essential for the courts system to take up the traditional approach that would ensure that the decisions made focus wholly on the evidence presented. In some cases, the courts may make the decision to extend review of the evidence by creating a systemic approach that would help in listening to verbal evidence from witnesses.
Verbal evidence may provide the courts with a clear understanding of the problem in question thereby enhancing the capacity to make effective decisions. However, it is important for the courts to weigh in on the credibility of the witnesses presented as a way of ensuring that the decisions made represent an accurate version of the problem encountered. The practical approach for the courts dealing with the problem focuses on mediation, as the courts have the ability to undertake mediation talks and negotiations. Usage of the courts system acts as a platform for mediation between two or more parties involved in a given dispute. The mediation process may highlight the position of all parties involved in the dispute as a way of ensuring that the negotiation processes take into consideration such positions.
Reluctance to Change
Change of strategies and approaches has become one of the key challenges facing the courts system especially in cases where they intend to make decisions that would have significant impacts. The challenges arise due to reluctance attributed to several factors that define success in dealing with some of the problems that may arise as part of the courts’ mandate. The reluctance to change the approaches used within the courts system in dealing with the problem has come about due to significant confines within the law. Levenstein (2016) points out that the courts systems have the mandate of ensuring that any decisions that they make reflect on the confines of the law. Consequently, this means that any change with regard to the strategy or approach undertaken in dealing with the problem must reflect on the provisions of the law as part of ensuring that the courts maintain their mandate.
Another key factor that creates reluctance towards changing the approaches and strategies utilized is a lack of proper guidelines that would govern the overall process of change. Presentation of guidelines may act as a viable platform that would help towards ensuring that the change implemented does not act as a contradiction towards the expectations from the law. In addition, the guidelines may also help to highlight some of the steps that the courts system may undertake with the focus being towards maintaining success. One key aspect to note is that the criminal justice system relies wholly on guidelines that would help towards ensuring that the decisions made reflect on expectations from different quotas. Consequently, this means that lack of proper guidelines that would help in propelling change in the approaches or strategies utilized creates that reluctance among the officials involved.
Motivations Required
Based on the reluctance towards changes in strategies and approaches undertaken as part of the criminal justice system, it is important to highlight some of the motivations that would help in effecting such changes. Firstly, highlighting specific loopholes in the current system with regard to inefficiencies affecting performance may help towards ensuring that the officials in the courts system understand the need for change. Currently, these officials do not understand any need for change, as they believe that the current system does not present any platforms for inefficiencies especially on matters associated with decision-making. However, highlighting the different avenues that would create vulnerability of the system may act as a motivation towards promoting the need for implementation of changes in the current system. Highlighting some of these inefficiencies may create a better avenue for ensuring that the system maintains its performance capacities.
Secondly, the creation of policy guidelines focused on effecting change in the current system may act as a motivation that would ensure that the courts system officials understand some of the key areas that they would need to fix. Policymaking acts as a one of the structural frameworks that help in defining success within the criminal justice system. Consequently, this means that effecting of change may only come about based on the policies developed that would reflect on some of these changes within the current system. However, policymakers must ensure that the changes they effect do not affect or hinder the ability for the courts system to make decisions based on the problems that they encounter. Implementation of these policies would act as a motivational factor that would define whether the courts system would maintain its effectiveness as part strategic expectations.
References
Crandall, E. (2014). Does the system of judicial appointment matter? Exploring women's representation on Ontario's Courts. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 26(2), 185-205.
Levenstein, R. (2016). Crisis of knowledge: The importance of educating the public about the role of fair and impartial courts in our system of government. Florida Bar Journal, 90(5), 34-37.
