Compromised Justice: A Study on the Role of Quasi-Judicial Officers in Georgia's State-Level Courts

This study examines the behavioral and perception differences of judges and quasi-judicial officers to discern if these individuals provide equitable and fair treatment to each citizen who appears in a courtroom. From the eight hypotheses, differences in the use and satisfaction of reference materials, as well as the perceived level of autonomy and discretion in completing daily activities help to reveal any differences that might exist. The lower-level state court judges and quasi-judicial officers' responses to a nine- question Qualtrics survey examines the positions and the legal training of both samples. Understanding these aspects can help the lower-level state judiciary system ultimately reduce both human and fiscal costs. Reductions in costs are important given the continually constrained budgets these entities face. It is critical to ensure that administering second-rate justice does not become the norm for the judicial system. This study examines only a small portion of the potential research in this area. From this study, a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of judges and quasi-judicial officers is attainable.Chapter I Introduction 1 | Statement Of The Problem 6 | Study Objectives 12 | Research Questions 13 | Summary 14 | Chapter Ii Literature Review 17 | The Judiciary: Past, Present, And Future 21 | Judges 22 | Quasi-judicial Officers 32 | The Bureaucracy Inside And Outside The Judiciary 35 | Judicial Street-level Bureaucrats And Discretion 39 | Judicial Street-level Bureaucrats And Accountability 49 | Summary 52 | Chapter Iii Methodology 55 | Research Questions And Hypotheses 57 | Research Question 1 59 | Research Question 2 62 | Research Question 3 65 | Study Participants 66 | Survey Instrument And Quantitative Analysis 67 | Data Collection And Analysis 68 | Summary 71 | Chapter Iv Data Results And Analysis 73 | Quasi-judicial Officer And Judge Profiles 76 | Research Question 1 78 | Hypothesis 1: Legal Questions (survey Question 8 Analysis) 79 | Data For All Respondents. 79 | Data For Respondents With A J.d. 81 | Data For Respondents Without A J.d. 83 | Hypothesis 2: Adequacy Of Resource Materials (survey Question 7 Analysis) 85 | Data For All Respondents. 86 | Data For Respondents With A J.d. 87 | Data For Respondents Without A J.d. 89 | Data Comparing Legal Education By Respondents. 90 | Research Question 2 91 | Hypothesis 3: Authorization Establishing Rules And Procedures (survey Question 4 Analysis) 92 | Data For All Respondents. 93 | Data For Respondents With A J.d. 94 | Data For Respondents Without A J.d. 95 | Hypothesis 4: Perform Same Tasks Daily (survey Question 5 Analysis) 97 | Data For All Respondents. 98 | Data For Respondents With A J.d. 99 | Data For Respondents Without J.d. 101 | Research Question 3 103 | Conclusion 110 | Chapter V Discussion 113 | Overview 114 | Findings 115 | Implications For The State Judiciary System 119 | Conclusion 121 | Bibliography 123 | Appendix A: Survey Sent To Judges And Quasi-judicial Officers 136 | Appendix B: Survey 140 | Appendix C: Thank You Letter Email (follow Up To Submission Of Survey) 143 | Appendix D: Follow-up Email Regarding Participation 145 | Appendix E: Diagram Of The State Of Georgia Court System 147 | Appendix F: Description Of Each State Of Georgia Trial Court 149 | Appendix G: Law Degrees And Curriculum 152 | Appendix H: Variable Definitions 156 | Appendix I: Institutional Review Board Approval Documentation 159 | Appendix J: Key Term Definitions 161 | Appendix K: Survey Data For All Questions 166 |Peterson, JamesPeterson, BonnieStrickler, VincentD.P.APublic Administratio