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.
Based on my courthouse inspections and interviews with judicial officers, the technology factors that most often represent deficiencies in courtrooms are:
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.
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.
