Unified court systems and specialized courts are two different types of court reform that have emerged. Compare and contrast these two types of reform. In which direction have contemporary court reformers gone?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Those who advocate for a unified court system seek to create a more centralized court system, with authority concentrated in the state capital. This would allow for centralized administration, rule making, and budgeting. Under such a model, minor and specialized courts would be consolidated; variations between county courts would be eliminated and replaced by a similar court structure throughout the state. Critics of such an approach argue that a unified court system does not allow for a consideration of the realities of the local courthouses or their unique offender populations. These critics argue that court reform should focus on problem solving. Thus, specialized courts at the local level have been created to deal with specific types of offenders. Included among these courts are drug courts, domestic violence courts, and mental health courts, to name a few. These specialized courts rely on therapeutic jurisprudence, and preliminary evaluations have been generally positive. In short, while the idea of a unified court system has been debated, individual jurisdictions use specialty courts to meet their needs. Contemporary court reform is often identified with problem-solving courts (Wolf 2007).