Administrative Justice (original) (raw)
Related papers
African-Americans and the Administration of Justice
1991
The status of African Americans in relationship to the administration of justice has improved since the 1940s. Significantly, however, researchers continue to find racial discrimination and racial disadvantage operating in various aspects of the criminal justice process in numerous jurisdictions. Such findings are unacceptable in a society that claims to honor equal justice under law. This article is reprinted from
The Creation of the Department of Justice: Professionalization Without Civil Rights or Civil Service
Stanford Law Review, 2014
This Article offers a new interpretation of the founding of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 1870 as an effort to shrink and professionalize the federal government. The traditional view is that Congress created the DOJ to increase the federal government's capacity to litigate a growing docket due to the Civil War. More recent scholarship contends that Congress created the DOJ to enforce Reconstruction and ex-slaves' civil rights. However, it has been overlooked that the DOJ Act eliminated about one-third of federal legal staff. The founding of the DOJ had less to do with Reconstruction, and more to do with "retrenchment" (budget cutting and anti-patronage reform). The DOJ's creation was linked with major professionalization efforts, such as the founding of modern bar associations, to make the practice of law more exclusive and more independent from partisan politics. In this new interpretation, the DOJ's creation runs in the opposite
The Organization of Administrative Justice Systems
Center For the Study of Law and Society Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program, 2006
In Total Justice (1985), legal historian Lawrence M. Friedman outlines a dramatic shift in the legal culture of economically advanced democracies over the last century and a quarter. He argues that in tandem with unparalleled increases in societal wealth, technological sophistication, and governmental capacity, citizens have become less fatalistic about the hazards and injustices of life. They have developed a generalized expectation that modern societies now have the ability to reduce the risks and impact of impoverishment, disease, injury, environmental degradation, crime, discrimination, and economic instability. If these things can be done, people come to believe, governments should make they are done. In competitive democracies, political leaders respond to such expectations. So decade after decade, governments conduct studies, hold hearings, enact more laws, create more rights, regulate more risks, extend legal liability to more sources of harm, and spend more money on social benefit programs.
Administration of justice: an emerging research field
RAUSP Management Journal
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the concept of Administration of Justice as a research field and set out an agenda for future studies that could promote the production of scientific knowledge in this area. Design/methodology/approach This paper explores the idiosyncratic features, dimensions of analysis upon the Administration of Justice, states a research agenda and discusses the main challenges on this theme. This paper conceptualizes Administration of Justice as a research field and discusses related phenomena from institutional and economic perspectives on innovation, performance, governance and legitimacy. Findings As a research field, Administration of Justice is defined as a set of theoretical concepts, research methods and techniques, aiming to investigate the management processes associated with the use and articulation of resources, knowledge and institutions, at different levels of the justice system, and their influence on the provision of justice in a gi...
2016
The injustice by professionals within the criminal justice system gives rise to societal opinion that purports that these respective agencies lack a clear perception of their professional conduct. This invidious neglect toward societal opinion preempts the divide among law enforcement agencies-most specifically-and the United States population. The impaired perception on professional conduct the criminal justice professionals suffer from nationwide owes itself to the misuse of authority and a subsequent lack of accountability for improper actions. Overtime, the dissolving of one's civil liberties has perpetuated in accord to the deference awarded to law enforcement agencies and the courts that allow this privilege; notwithstanding, this corruption continuum only dilutes into the nation's prison population. The exclusionary rule, as adopted by the Supreme Court in 1914, does not alone offer much substance in line with correcting this impaired perception among criminal justice professionals, however, the rules underlying principle in the rule of law could prove paramount. The purpose of this paper is to negate reasons favoring a suppression of the rule, and inspire research as to how this principle, modified into policy, can begin a movement toward closing the "revolving-door" that otherwise fuel the justice system in America, by doing so in jump-starting that system toward functioning systematically, not fraudulently.