Court Administration Case Study

Our text explains that “Court administration as we know it today grew out of our organization developments of the 1940’s” (Cronkhite, 2013, p. 124). Congress passed an Administrative Office of the Courts Act in 1939, which had a lot to do with the development of the court’s administration. Efficiency was listed as the explanation as the goal as well as the modern management methods within in court system (Cronkhite, 2013).
At first glance this assumption would seem plausible, however a simple search of the history of the federal judiciary, listed the landmark legislation along with a more detailed explanation for the Administrative Office of the Courts Act in 1939. It seems that for 150 years the administrative responsibility for the federal courts went from the Treasury Department to the Interior Department, finally to the Justice Department in 1870. In the early twentieth century some of the judges begin to feel that the administrative oversight that was being place upon the courts by the Justice Department had become most ineffective, and in addition posed a risk for interference with the justice process ("History of the Federal Judiciary," n.d., para. 1).
There were many proposals and ideas passed around, even the Roosevelt administration’s Judicial Reorganization Bill of 1937, which was ultimately defeated.

After the Roosevelt plan was beaten, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, appointed members from the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges to in turn to work with the American Bar Association as well as the Justice Department in the creation of the proposed Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts ("History of the Federal Judiciary," n.d., para. 3).
As to why I feel that court administration did not begin until many years after it developed in law enforcement and corrections, simple fact of need.

The courts during the early years were simply not as busy and could handle the case loads better, as time went on and cities grew, so did crime and a growing caseload. Government, whether it’s federal, state, or local, start many projects and or divisions as unfunded mandates. As those divisions increase in size, responsibilities and obtain personnel, budgets, training, benefits, operations, and a need for human resources, a more detailed administration was developed to streamline the

process.
The text (Cronkhite) also make mention of the history and use of the many different types of sentencing laws such as determinate sentences, which makes the offender complete a quantified amount of time and the instant that time is completed the offender, is released. The mandatory minimum sentencing law is where the offender that is sentenced of certain crimes has to serve no less than a certain amount of time. In addition, there is the “Three strikes and you’re out” program; this program is based upon those repeat offenders who are constantly being incarcerated for multiple crimes. It gives the offender two opportunities, then on the third time is sentenced to a certain amount of time in the penitentiary (McNamara & Burns, 2009, p. 268-69). These trends were also contributory in the establishment of the (AOC) or the Administrator of the Court (Cronkhite, 2013, p. 125).