Today, we continue my eight-part series on quantitative measures used in courthouse planning with a discussion on technology– the availability of technology systems to support court proceedings, public access, and coordination between court components.
Courtroom technology system in use
Based on my courthouse inspections and interviews with judicial officers, the technology factors that most often represent deficiencies in courtrooms are:
- Lack of holding cells in the courthouse with an A/V feed to a courtroom to allow disruptive prisoners to follow the proceedings.
- Courtrooms that do not have evidence presentation systems.
- Courtrooms that do not have technologies to assist the deaf and hard of hearing.
The percentages of facilities recorded in our 956-court facility (federal, state, and local) database that are impacted by these deficiencies are presented in the following graph.
Our database shows that, of the total court facilities that we have assessed to date, 89% of the facilities do not have holding cells in the courthouse that have an A/V feed to a courtroom to allow disruptive prisoners that cannot be in the courtroom to follow the proceedings; 78% do not have courtrooms that provide fixed evidence presentation systems; and 64% of the facilities do not have courtrooms that provide technologies to assist the deaf and hard of hearing.
Although technology systems are essential throughout the courthouse, nowhere is it more critical than in the courtroom. An optimally functioning courtroom technology system requires the proper location of system components relative to the position of courtroom participants and the architectural and furniture considerations that might affect the system’s performance. The audio speakers and recording devices, video screens and cameras, computers, and other electronic components of a courtroom’s technology system must all be appropriately positioned to function optimally.
In recent years, I have observed an inclination to rely on high-tech presentation screens and other technology system components to such an extent that they have resulted in a confusing, poorly coordinated, or overly complicated technology system that is less than an optimal enhancement – it may even be a distraction to the proceedings. For this reason, when I am involved in a technology system renovation planning process, I consider both the performance of the technology system components per se as well as how they will fit into the trial process.
As this series concludes, I will spend my remaining two posts exploring how the metrics are combined to rate an overall courthouse, perform a gap analysis, and score various alternatives to fill the gap.
