Leadership in Action
The judiciary is one of the most important arms in a free and democratic society and in many states, its duties are well outlined in the constitutions. By structure, almost all constitutions design it as an independent body and operate within the requirements of the principle of separation of powers (Forsyth, 2015). A strong public image and reputation are crucial in the dispensation of its duty, and the decisions made culminate into a lasting effect on individuals and society. For instance, it could define public policy. Considering its significance, an incompetent and misleading system could produce far-reaching implications in the society and individuals. Any state should have a strong and an independent judiciary. The society, state and citizens have much to benefit from an efficient and impartial judiciary. In many ways, the criminal justice system doubles as a crime control unit and justice department. Due to the nature and importance of its duty, it is crucial that its stakeholders should be persons of high integrity. Such individuals should be independent, competent and impartial because compromised personnel’s affect the reputation of the system and defeat the course of justice. The dynamics attached to it, make corruption a common vice in the justice systems. Corruption has an economic, social, and environmental dimension and all conspire to make it difficult to fight.
Defining the Problem
There is no a universally agreed definition of corruption, but many people concede that they know it when they experience, or when it happens and in many cases, it is only visible in operation. As already mentioned, it has numerous dynamics that make it difficult to contemplate a definition comprehensive enough to cover all the possible cases. However, some instances, such as cronyism, favoritism, and taking of bribe are the most common forms of corruption in the judiciary. Regardless of the form, the aggregate effect of the corrupt act is that it negates the objective application of law and consequently averts the cause of justice. To serve the course of justice, a judge may deliberately avoid using relevant facts or knowingly make erroneous interpretation of the law to serve a predetermined and compromised decision.
In many ways, it may not be easy to decipher the connection, but an objective assessment of its operation would unravel the flaws in the system and usually this is only possible during appeals of decisions. However, the most affected are often the poor and illiterate, with no means and understanding of the operation of the law. Due to these difficulties, the vice is likely to go without being intercepted leaving the perpetrators unpunished and ready to repeat such acts. There are two things that deny the justice system capacity to control the problem and they include the presence of vague and insufficient legislations that incapacitate the courts to punish offenders. Many penal codes recognize the offense as a crime, and the justice system has to consider all the elements in determining whether the accused is culpable or not. Often, corruption is not easily ascertainable and perpetrators have invented ways of beating the system and escape its claw. Secondly, it has a long chain of commission that is often difficult to crack, especially where the culprits have bothered to cover their tracks. It has many dynamics worth exploring to get to the depth of the problem.
Economic Dimension
This factor is evident from either the perspective of the victim or the perpetrator. Often, human morality is easy to erode when subjected to necessity. A long time concern in many courts is often on remunerations in the justice system and lowly paid judges are an easy target for corrupt deals. The role of judges forms the pillars of the functions of the judiciary. Many Commonwealth states do not have a special body for determining the salaries of various stakeholders within the system (Forsyth, 2015). To the contrary, states retain a common remuneration department to determine the pay of all its civil servants. This practice makes it difficult to acknowledge the nobility of their duty to the public and reward accordingly. Besides, it is an indirect way of infringing the requirements of separation of power. A common department places the justice system in the same salary range. Small and insufficient pay predispose the leaders to engage in illegalities such as corruption to supplement their income. Under salaried personnel are easy to compromise and predetermine the result. As already mentioned, victims’ poverty and ignorance of the law make it easy for the acts to pass unquestioned.
Environmental Factor
The environment in the judiciary is overly legal and bureaucratic in nature and the rift between high-ranking officials and the society is unbridgeable. In many ways, it is a phobic environment resented by many in the society. The majority of the people in the society are ignorant and do not even have a clue of how the courts operate and their setting is understood by many as a horrifying and resentful environment. Many societies find the environment intimidating and stigmatizing and only a few individuals understand that courts decisions can be successfully challenged and reversed. The majority of those who have been in court consider the environment a horrifying experience. As a result of these challenges, parties readily welcome any form of help and bribing is not an exception. Adverse perceptions of the society exacerbate the depth of the problem and many perceive the courts as highly corrupt zones. The corrupt activities in the judicial systems, especially in the developing economies have shaped the attitude of people and parties go to the court believing that justice is facilitated through bribing. In fact, in many states, the quest for justice has been reduced to test for financial muscle and how connected a person is to the people in authority. Besides, the judicial system is highly corrupt and the vice is passed among staff through interaction.
Social Factor
In a courtroom, setting the level of interaction between the magistrates and the courts is highly professional. The communication practice is good for impartiality when deciding a case. However, many courts have case brokers who help to bridge the social gap and the court clerks double as case brokers. The two provide a link with the magistrates and the parties. Often, long-term interaction and experience create strong rapport with the magistrates attached to certain courts. Their function explains how the idea of a bribe is conceived, issued and received by the target persons. The society has lived under the notion that the interaction in courts is characterized by bribing, and it is necessary for survival.
Criteria
Brainstorming
In many working institutions, brainstorming is viewed as a last resort procedure when all the others have failed to deliver. As a group, four things made it the priority. Firstly, we recognized that the causes of corruption in the justice system could be many, and considering forms of corruption in the other sectors are relatively many, the solutions could be varied. As such, it allowed the group a great chance to consolidate all the potential causes and possible solutions from different perspectives. Since brainstorming session does not involve a critique of the ideas, it makes it easy to gather as much as possible. Secondly, brainstorming does not have many regulations to follow. The process allows the member the right to decide the rules of engagement. Participant’s autonomy is necessary, as it would make the debaters feel in control of the process during the sessions. Additionally, brainstorming is a social interaction process and it was one way of understanding and appreciating the diversity of the team members. Considering we were supposed to work as a team for a long period, the group needed to foster a strong working environment of teamwork. Lastly, brainstorming allowed a more flexible arrangement, especially due to the use of technological devices. The group appreciated that other commitments might make it difficult to avail oneself for the meeting. This would defeat the quorum requirements and eventually derail the activities of the group.
The use of technology facilitated virtual meetings through electronic brainstorming. As such, this meant that the group could sanction meetings within a short notice, as it is not all the time the group required the members to meet in a physical place. In the brainstorming sessions, members would propose problems and causes. Usually, a single problem could trigger several others and in the process lead to fertilization of ideas. Towards the end of the process, the secretary prepares the list of all the suggestions and sends it to the members for review before compiling the final report. However, for the criteria to have some relevance, it must be able to ascertain the causes and propose a possible remedy.
Alternative Criterion
Problem Tree Diagram
Problem tree diagram simulates the analogy of the connection between roots and the leaves (Collis & Hussey, 2013). The growth and development of tree depend on how established its roots are. Scientifically, the roots feed the tree. However, it is a three-part procedure, including the role of the roots, trunk, and the leaves. The roots lay the foundation of the problem, but the scope of growth depends on the contribution of the roots. The activities and effectiveness of the roots manifest in the growth and development of the tree. It hypothesizes cause and effect scenario in a practical situation and the roots represent the causes, the leaves the effects. In a tree diagram, the causes are represented at a higher level while the solution comes at a lower level. A significant problem connects the two, but a more specific cause lies at the bottom.
The tree diagram presupposes that an efficient way of identifying a solution peg on the proper identification of the problem. Unlike in brainstorming, it does not propose a solution explicitly. However, one has to deduce a suitable solution from the available facts. Although there is not a standard way of drawing the diagram, an experience is necessary when making the drawing. The tree diagram must communicate clearly, although it is a dependent criterion and it presupposes that a long list of causes and effect must be available. In the case of corruption, establishing the causes is a tedious task but the criterion does not make any efforts towards it. In practice, the tree diagram is more of an analytical tool and not a data collection formula like brainstorming.
Problem Checklist
A checklist is a list of potential problems and just like a tree diagram, it is a dependent criterion. It depends on the findings of other criteria compile the list. Often, a checklist is prepared from the findings of an existing discussion. However, a checklist could be a draft prepared without any prior discussion. In such cases, the checklist could be overly lengthy with much misleading information. A checklist records all the potential causes of a problem, but leaves the solution hanging for further discussion. Often, a discussion has been a two-part process that includes problem and solution finding. Either way, a checklist must involve other solution finding the procedure. In practice, checklists are prepared as a guide for the course of a discussion. The aim is to maintain the discourse within the objects to avoid digressing to irrelevancies. Usually, it is prepared in preparation of discussions at the interdisciplinary level. Often, it can be a lengthy document consolidating all the departments and the notable problems. Before the discussions, participants should be provided with the list to allow them jog their memory on the topic (De Mast, & Lokkerbol, 2012). However, the interdisciplinary committee may opt to review the checklist for missing cause and problems from the previous stage. Just like in brainstorming, checklists are essential in understanding the connection between a cause and the problem, which facilitates decision-making.
Conclusion
The justice system performs a noble duty and it doubles as the public policy maker and justice defender. It is important that its key personnel have the capacity and remain impartial when making decisions. However, the social, economic and environmental factors attached, place these requirements at a risk by promoting corruption. Laws should be the only consideration when making decisions. The system should be able to maintain a strong reputation for winning confidence from the public. However, the three factors above predispose its personnel to corruption. In practice, corruption averts the course of justice and fan distrust from the public. The practice in many courts is dominated by an uncontrolled issuance of bribes to influence decision-making. Despite its implications, the efforts directed towards its elimination have had little success. The many dynamics attached make it difficult to understand the actual cause of the problem.
References
Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2013). Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. Palgrave Macmillan.
De Mast, J., & Lokkerbol, J. (2012). An analysis of the Six Sigma DMAIC method from the perspective of problem solving. International Journal of Production Economics, 139(2), 604-614.
Forsyth, M. (2015). Understanding judicial independence in Vanuatu. Critical Asian Studies.
