7-2 Final Submission: Scenario Analysis

Running head: DRAFT OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 0

Draft of Judicial Administration

Jessica Lyons

SNHU

Draft of Judicial Administration

The judicial administration system is guided by a number of policies which reveal the exact intensions of both the government and other involved bodies. Just to mention, the core reason why most cases are presented in the judicial bodies is to ensure the elevation of justice at all costs. Over the years, many people have fallen victims of poor judicial proceedings and this issue calls for the implementation of strategies that curb the existence of unfair forces within the entire system. Calendaring and docketing of major judicial cases require the intervention of many experts who ought to aim at the achievement of justice in line with the intensity of the cases at hand. Evidently, the process of calendaring the case creates an effective platform which gives both the offender and the offended the desired ample time to come up with tactics of presenting their perceptions during the hearing of the case (Hale, 2014). This paper clearly exposes a number of significant factors that revolves on how the judicial system can mobilize other bodies to ensure that justice is uplifted at all times during major case proceedings.

The federal and state judicial bodies work in cohesion in most cases. It is essential to note that the federal government strives to ensure that the judicial personnel are highly qualified people who can make effective judgments. However, the ranking order in these systems might slightly differ due to various factors. A deeper evaluation reveals that the judicial approaches in the state courts and federal courts might be different depending on the intensity of the presented case (Fish, 2015). It is essential to pin point the fact that the calendaring in the federal judicial system might be altered due to the sequence of case presentation. This aspect is mainly due to the high number of cases which are normally preferred to be handled by the federal official rather than the state officials. Additionally, this argument can be hoisted further through measures that reveal clear differences between the judicial systems in diverse state organizations. Nonetheless, it is clear at this point that the key role of the two systems is to ensure that offenders are punished effectively. This boosts their respective operations because they get full support and trust from the masses.

The selected venue of the robbery case in this scenario can affect the process in a number of ways. The fact that many witnesses are from Washington, D.C raises the notion that the process can be more effective if conducted at the state level. It is revealed that the local police officers were alerted and therefore their presence during the case could lead to the revelation of more evidence against the three offenders.

The proposed continuance period of four months might have dimensional impacts to any court system. For instance, it is exposed that the heavy workload affects the calendaring of many cases. However, the imperativeness of preparation on both sides cannot be overlooked at any given moment. According to Hale (2014), the court officials can make the correct ruling if they have a longer period to investigate a case. On the other side of the coin, a longer continuance period can sabotage the process if the evidence is tempered with before the ruling is made. Consequently, the judicial body ought to consider various factors before approving the proposal from the attorneys of the three offenders.

References

Fish, P. G. (2015). The Politics of Federal Judicial Administration. New York: Princeton University Press.

Hale, S. (2014). Interpreting culture. Dealing with cross-cultural issues in court interpreting. Perspectives, 22(3), 321-331.