| NCJ Number: |
185263   |
| |
|
| Title: |
Management Note |
| |
|
| Journal: |
Justice System Journal Volume:21 Issue:3 Dated:2000 Pages:333-347 |
| |
|
| Author(s): |
David C. Brody |
| |
|
| Date Published: |
2000 |
| |
|
| Page Count: |
15 |
| |
|
| Sponsoring Agency: |
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Rockville, MD 20849-6000 |
| |
|
| Sale Source: |
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America |
| |
|
| Type: |
Program/Project Description |
| |
|
| Format: |
Article |
| |
|
| Language: |
English |
| |
|
| Country: |
United States of America |
| |
|
| Annotation: |
This article suggests a "best practices" approach to judicial
performance evaluation programs that uses various components of
each of the existing programs to help States with judge retention
elections design a more effective and reliable system upon which
the public can rely in making judge electoral decisions.
|
| |
|
| Abstract: |
The "best practices" approach proposed is based on both the
social scientific literature and the current judicial performance
evaluation practices used in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, New
Mexico, and Utah. These five States are worthy examples for
States seeking to develop programs of their own. These States
have maintained their focus on informing the public and improving
the judiciary without infringing on judicial independence. This
article first provides background information on judicial
performance evaluation programs (JEPs). It then discusses the
following factors that must be considered in developing and
evaluating JPE programs: who will design and oversee the program;
what information will be used in the evaluation; how the
information will be collected and analyzed; what will be the
criteria of evaluation; and what information will be provided to
the public. An example of the perils of operating a JPE program
is then provided. The concluding section of this article
summarizes 13 of the "best practices" that should be present in a
JPE program. Among these are that a multimember commission
appointed from multiple sources should sit as evaluators; the
commission should have a reasonable balance between lawyers,
judges, and nonlawyers and should be drawn from throughout the
State; and the program, at a minimum, should have the dual goals
of improving judicial performance and informing the public about
the performance of their judiciary. 1 figure and 19 references
|
| |
|
| Main Term(s): |
Court personnel |
| |
|
| Index Term(s): |
Alaska; Arizona; Colorado; Judge selection; Judicial performance evaluation; New Mexico; Utah |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=185263 |
| |
|
