FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1660891852> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1660891852 endingPage "78" @default.
• W1660891852 startingPage "62" @default.
• W1660891852 abstract "This article presents results from a pilot case study comparing the effects of court security in two modern and highly respected metropolitan county court systems. Although federal and state courts have paid increasing attention to security in their buildings and operations, little formal evaluation has been conducted of the effects of heightened security on court operations or court users, including judges, litigants, lawyers, jurors, and the general public. The pres ent research identified four common areas of concern, including inadequate signage and cov ered waiting areas at courthouse entry stations; disparities between the publics expectations of security measures and the limits of implementation; inconsistent monitoring of security measures; and gaps between heightened public expectations of security and the realities of limited resources to accomplish these tasks. If even these courts presented issues of concern, there are likely additional courts that warrant greater attention to the effects of security. Court security is a balance. A courthouse is a place where people are sup posed to come to find justice (Murez, 2005). ince the mid-1990s, federal and state courts have paid increasing attention to security in their buildings and operations. Bollards and magnetometers are now regular features in many courthouses, as the judiciary is adopting many of the same security measures common in other sensitive government facilities. In this under standable move to raise the bar for court security, however, little formal evaluation has been conducted of the effects of heightened security on court operations or court users, including judges, litigants, lawyers, jurors, and the general public. To be sure, the effects of security measures may be an informal component of the decision to pur chase a new security system or adopt new security protocols. But given the special nature of the judiciary as an open arbiter for the general public, it is important that the measures adopted by the courts to protect themselves and their constituencies avoid harm to the courts' reputation for openness, impartiality, or prudence. This article presents results from a pilot case study examining the effects of court security. The project systematically compared two respected metropolitan county court systems, using both observational and qualitative methodologies to examine the effects of security measures on court operations and constituencies. Both courts are among the national leaders in securing their facilities, and court officials have been responsive to organized objections to security measures when voiced by court staff and, in some cases, by attorneys. However, the research identified four The author thanks Virginia P. Zimmerman for research assistance. Research was conducted with support from" @default.
• W1660891852 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1660891852 creator A5090382893 @default.
• W1660891852 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W1660891852 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1660891852 title "Security at What Cost? A Comparative Evaluation of Increased Court Security*" @default.
• W1660891852 cites W3121048409 @default.
• W1660891852 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2007.10767827" @default.
• W1660891852 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W1660891852 type Work @default.
• W1660891852 sameAs 1660891852 @default.
• W1660891852 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1660891852 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1660891852 hasAuthorship W1660891852A5090382893 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConcept C112698675 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConcept C114938261 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConcept C2776916960 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConcept C38652104 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConceptScore W1660891852C10138342 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConceptScore W1660891852C112698675 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConceptScore W1660891852C11413529 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConceptScore W1660891852C114938261 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConceptScore W1660891852C138885662 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConceptScore W1660891852C139621336 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConceptScore W1660891852C144133560 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConceptScore W1660891852C17744445 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConceptScore W1660891852C199539241 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConceptScore W1660891852C2776916960 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConceptScore W1660891852C2778137410 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConceptScore W1660891852C3116431 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConceptScore W1660891852C38652104 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConceptScore W1660891852C39549134 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConceptScore W1660891852C41008148 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConceptScore W1660891852C41895202 @default.
• W1660891852 hasConceptScore W1660891852C48103436 @default.
• W1660891852 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1660891852 hasLocation W16608918521 @default.
• W1660891852 hasOpenAccess W1660891852 @default.
• W1660891852 hasPrimaryLocation W16608918521 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W104253752 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W129041061 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W1528270836 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W161696500 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W19196944 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W2146664667 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W2359574151 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W2729582754 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W2756362191 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W2907809429 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W2953906736 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W3123827714 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W3124076490 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W3129080228 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W3158617454 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W3207582952 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W3213350201 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W56987923 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W581963745 @default.
• W1660891852 hasRelatedWork W2953464920 @default.
• W1660891852 hasVolume "28" @default.
• W1660891852 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1660891852 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1660891852 magId "1660891852" @default.
• W1660891852 workType "article" @default.