Judicial Approach to Public Administration
Advantages of Judicial Approach to Public Administration
For about 40 years ago, the impact of court intervention in the public administrative process was not universally observed as positive or constructive. However, recently, many places like prisons are regarded by the courts as involving 'mere housekeeping' matters and remain fully untouched by judicial reassessment. In recent years, effective changes have been made in the criminal justice system whereby courts have made an extra step to look beyond the first impression of a court appearance in acquiring the observance of procedural safeguards. Also, they have made a step forward beyond the sentencing stage to look at post-conviction imprisonment, whether in mental institutions or prisons (Osorio & O’Leary, 2016). Like in the district of Columbia, a court reassessed a decision whether to set free a sentenced child molester who was no longer considered dangerous even if the child had not been fully recovered.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has discovered the situations under which the state prison officials might censurer prisoners’ mail and procedural assurances which must go with in-prison disciplinary proceedings. These situations came to halt under the criminal justice system, although, the reach of courts just affected a small percentage of administrators. Due to changes in the criminal justice system, many petitions of asserted but not proved actions from schools, hospitals, and all other parts of the administrative process, have been brought forward before the court for judicial review (Cobbe, 2019). The growth of public support accepted service programs and public interest law firms has accelerated the expansion of court activities. It should be noted that judges don't have the power to intervene in government affairs on their own. Hence, courts are only involved in the administrative process only if a party feels that it has not received justice and petitions for readdressing.
Problems of Judicial Approach to Public Administration
To understand the problems involved, we can look at the doctrine of the separation of powers, not as a legal constitutional law, but as a political precept. The Founding Fathers had considered it, so they divided the powers not to ensure efficiency in the government but to safeguard it against the jurisdiction of an absolute ruler. The state and federal constitutions do not clearly define the terms executive, legislative and judicial. Therefore, a certain combination, as well as separation of powers, is required if effective work done by our public officials is realized. But the problem of effecting theoretical separation of powers is recognized all over (Osorio & O’Leary, 2016). Accordingly, legislatures have resolved contempt charges, election contests, divorce cases, and claims against the government, and have also enforced many obligations considered to be executive acts, for example, organizing corporations. The executive subdivision, in hearing cases concerning revocation of various kinds of licenses, workmen’s compensation, and removal of individuals in the civil service, must understand and interpret the law.
The judiciary, on the other hand, compels the law by its power to grasp in contempt and to issue written orders of execution and judicial process. Also, it declares a rule of law applicable to the case at bar where none exists. All departments exercise some sort of judgment and discretion when performing their duties (Guimaraes, Gomes & Filho, 2018). However, courts have not given any sort of tests for legislative, executive, or judicial functions. Constitutions are imperfections on the legislative, and concession to the executive and judicial arms of the government. The judicial authority concerning the mass of decisions interpreting the separation of powers clause embraces every kind of jurisdiction, activity, or power.
References
Cobbe, J. (2019). Administrative law and the machines of government: Judicial review of automated public-sector decision-making. Legal Studies, 39(4), 636-655. doi:10.1017/lst.2019.9
Guimaraes, T. A., Gomes, A. O., & Filho, E. R. (2018). Administration of justice: An emerging research field. RAUSP Management Journal, 53(3), 476-482. doi:10.1108/rausp-04-2018-010
Osorio, A., & O’Leary, R. (2016). The Impact of Courts on Public Management: New Insights From the Legal Literature. Administration & Society, 49(5), 658-678. doi:10.1177/0095399716682329
