Courts of Law and Criminal Justice
The Judiciary forms the third arm of government in United Sates. In its quest to dispense justice, the jury plays independent roles of enabling fair trials and earning the trust of Americans by judging impartially while court officers are crucial in the effective administration of the courts and assumption of the challenges that confront people. In mutually interdependent ways, the jury and court officers are charged with the responsibility of establishing the legal and organizational framework and controlling the day-to-day court operations. This calls for balancing the delicate internal relationships to divide administrative duties among court officers and the jury (Brynes, 2006).
The jury is legally responsible for the administration of justice within the court system. Therefore, it fulfils its duties through the impartial dispensation of justice. Additionally, the judges’ decision making has to be devoid of personal preferences, public opinion, and inter- branch pressure to ensure that the legislature maintains in check. As a result, judges have a responsibility of delivering justice that embodies trust among people. However, this is impeded by the lack of uniform segregation of duties between the jury and court officers and political interference in judicial processes, which negatively impacts the jury’s independence and derails decision making (Mendenhall, 2010).
Nevertheless, the Jury and court officers play an overlapping functional role within the judicial system of the United States. The role relates to the establishment of legal and organization frameworks within the court system and managing the control of court operations. Though chief judges are at the helm of court management, the inadequate management training that they receive renders court officers useful in executing administrative and management duties. This depends on the scope of decisions involved. In most instances, decisions involving other lawyers are taken by the jury while complex ones delegated to court officers. Therefore, catalysing the importance of mutual dependence amongst the Jury, court administrators, and other branches of government enhances seamless decisions (Tobin, 2004).
The Jury and court administrators play different roles which are both independent and mutually interdependent. Independently, the jury strengthens the justice system though politicians may meddle in the judicial processes, thereby limiting its independence. However, there is a mutual interdependence between the jury and court officers especially with regards to the overlapping functions they undertake. Consequently, jury and court officers must learn to balance between the sophisticated internal relationships within the court system (Ferehjohn, 2011).
References
Brynes, M.M. (2006). Judicial independence, interdependence and accountability. Retrieved from<https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Education%20and%20Careers/CEDP%2 0Papers/2006/MillerByrnesMelissaCEDPFinal0506.ashx>
Ferehjohn, J. (2011). Independent judges, dependent judiciary. Explaining judicial independence. Retrieved from www-bcf.usc.edu/~usclrev/pdf/072303.pdf
Mendenhall, A.(2010).Asia Pacific regional conference. International Journal for court Administration, 5th edition, vol 2 (18-25)
Tobin. R (2004). Creating the judicial branch. The unfinished reform. Virginia: Authors Choice Press
