Answer to Question 1
d
Answer to Question 2
The principal objective of a unified court system is to shift judicial administration from local control to centralized management. The loose network of independent judges and courts is replaced by a coherent hierarchy with authority concentrated in the state capital. Although court reformers differ about the exact details of a unified court system, their efforts reflect five general principles: a simplified court structure; centralized administration, rule making, and budgeting; and statewide financing (Berkson and Carbon 1978). Court reformers stress the need for a simplified, unified, court structure for the entire state. This would mean that variations between counties would be eliminated and replaced by a similar court structure throughout the state. Reformers envision centralized administration. A centralized state office would supervise the work of judicial and nonjudicial personnel. The state high courts of last resort would have the power to adopt uniform rules and judges could be temporarily assigned to other courts to alleviate backlogs and reduce delay. Centralized judicial budgeting would provide for a single budget for the entire state judiciary. Lower courts would be dependent on the state high court of last resort for their monetary needs and unable to lobby local representatives directly. Thus, decisions about allocating funds would be made at the state and not the local level. Along with centralized judicial budgeting, reformers argue for the adoption of statewide financing of the judiciary. State government has more money and could better support necessary court services.
Early Stress and the Prefrontal Cortex
Early in the twentieth century, when malnutrition was common, companies such as this one advertised
Early Cancer Detection: 7 Warning Signs
The early regulatory region of phage l
How to evaluate third-order determinants by Minors Method (Question 1)