NCJ Number
218035
Date Published
2007
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This chapter addresses courts' use of "soft" technology, which pertains to computer software and programs that are designed to enhance public knowledge of court operations, as well as the quality of court administration, sentencing, and correctional practices under courts' monitoring.
Abstract
The discussion focuses on how "soft" technology serves courts' interests in transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness. Regarding transparency, the Internet has enabled courts to provide information to court participants and citizens more broadly and rapidly. Court Web sites provide basic information on court operations, including rules and procedures, and hours and locations. Online access is also provided to case information. Court efficiency is measured by how easily and quickly its major constituency, the legal profession, can access court-related information. This requires that the court maintain updated and organized files that can be retrieved by authorized parties while being protected from unauthorized access. Efficiency is also served by the application of court performance measurement systems that generate reports on the volume and timeliness of a court's work. The chapter profiles "CourTools," a set of performance measures for courts released by the National Center for State Courts in 2005. Other examples of soft technologies that enhance court efficiency are DeKalb County's (Georgia) radio frequency identification technology for tagging items related to a specific case, as well as Pennsylvania's Justice Network, which provides authorized online access to juvenile offender records and other juvenile justice information. Court "effectiveness" refers to the measures of a court's having achieved identified goals and outcomes for its activities. The chapter discusses how soft technology is used to measure the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing the drug use and offending of drug offenders and the effectiveness of regular criminal courts in selecting appropriate sentences for particular offenders. 21 references