According to Fautsko et al. (2010), lockdown may be described as emergency mechanisms employed by courtroom authorities that restrict individuals from accessing or exiting the court premises in the event of an attack or impending danger. Regarding the confines of the courtroom, procedures pertinent to evacuation lockdown should carefully be selected to guarantee the safety of every individual taking part in a court trial. On the other hand, a safe haven may be described as a safeguarded region or a structure found within a building that offers protection from direct or impending threats for a short period and sporadic interval. Court managers acknowledge safe havens and lockdowns as security mechanisms to safeguard court personnel and the general public in the event of a crisis. According to Fautsko et al. (2010), violent occurrences outside the court’s confines may necessitate the implementation of lockdown processes to provide a blockade between the courtroom, the ensuing situation, and the offender.
On the other hand, employing lockdown measures may not be considered viable if the crisis ensues with the court as the perpetrator has access to many defenseless individuals. Lockdowns mainly entail tactical circumstances, therefore, necessitating tactical resolutions to tackle the challenge. Conversely, safe havens are secure regions known by court personnel and mainly comprise emergency supplies, a mobile handset, and lockable doors.
According to Dunn and Grabchuk (2010), background assessments to include criminal checks should be enlisted as part of terms and conditions before being employed. Background assessments are deemed to be beneficial in disclosing an individual’s criminal record. Routine background assessments should be conducted on every individual engaged in court facilities, and the outcomes ought to be acquired before seeking the services of any person. Regarding court security, background assessments must be done as they are given the mandate of ensuring the safety of the general public and courtroom personnel. Apt vetting and investigation of the competencies, personality, moral principles, loyalty, commitment, and aspects are particularly imperative when engaging courthouse employees. Based on pre-employment vetting, most applicants may be deprived of employment because of application forgery, inadequate employment credentials, and criminal sentences. Other applicants may necessitate extra assessment targeting substantial challenges that should be elucidated before hiring. According to Dunn and Grabchuk (2010), it is vital for employers to regularly vet their personnel to ensure they were not convicted of any crime. Moreover, experts commend that proprietors incorporate specific background vetting policies that direct screening every two to five years. This process ought to extend across every department and seniority level to guarantee optimum safety within the workplace.
Logistics officers establish and obtain all resources needed to back the crisis response planning procedure. Logistics officers likewise trace every operational expense linked to the planning process and designate the equipment required for a specific project (Bakar et al., 2014). Moreover, the logistics officer offers the needed resources for every undertaking that emphasizes a crisis response program. In most cases, the officers would be given the duty of budgeting. In other instances, an individual stationed within the logistics department would be given the responsibility of financial planning. In turn, the officer would attempt to convert the reporting undertakings into an opening to advance the courtroom violence response committee. In case of an emergency, to utilize emergency resources, logistics officers must acknowledge the available resources, resource location, and appropriate steps involved in the procurement that comprise relevant return processes. As a result, logistics officers must create resource inventories to track resource usage in the event of a violent situation in a courtroom. By ensuring that the resource inventory is up-to-date, the officer can regenerate information files during previous occasions and send a duplicate to a contact individual, requesting confirmation of the facts and constant availability of resources.
According to Fautsko et al. (2010), the administrative support staff is liable for the provision of organizational backing concerning individuals engaged in crisis response planning procedure. The team manages routine office activities that include clerical and secretarial responsibilities deemed vital in enhancing the effective functioning of the courtroom. Moreover, it should help the chief planning officer in overseeing the response planning committee. The staff is given the mandate of effectively managing the paperwork by offering input to the logistics personnel regarding the supplies as necessitated. The administrative personnel is also mandated to update phone contacts and locator techniques regarding disaster response team staff, personal task schedules, schedules outlining courthouse staff liable for court complex structures, and data about courthouse employees. In case of an emergency, administrative are tasked with copying every safety and fire regulation to include them in the crisis response strategy.
Fautsko, T. F., Berson, S. V., O’Neil, J. F., Sheehan, K. W., & Hall, D. J. (2010). Steps to best practices for court building security. National Center for State Courts.
Dunn, E., & Grabchuk, M. (2010). Background checks and social effects: Contemporary residential tenant-screening problems in Washington State. Seattle J. Soc. Just., 9, 319.
Bakar, M. A. A., Jaafar, H. S., Faisol, N., & Muhammad, A. (2014, March). Logistics performance measurements-issues and reviews. In The Proceedings of 19th International Symposium on Logistics (pp. 517-524).