Court Ethnography Essay

For my court ethnography I observed plea, bail, and family court in the city of Milton. However, it was called the Ontario superior court of justice. When I first entered a court it looked exactly like what I had seen in movies. The court setup, the vernacular used, and the customs of the court employees were exactly like what mainstream media has displayed to the public over the years. Entering the court, symbols of justice were exhibited everywhere in the courtroom. In the courtroom all kinds of cases were occurring, and people from all types of backgrounds were involved. Observing the inner workings of our justice system gave me invaluable insight on how law and order is preserved in our society. Furthermore, I also got to witness the specific

processes that the public are not exposed to often, such as lawyers prepping their clients prior to trial. In addition, the proceedings of court would often tackle broad issues concerning our society, issues like young delinquents and homeless teens. The focus on rehabilitation, the circumstances of the guilty, and the re-integration of convicts were recurring areas of interest in the courts. Seeing the way judges reacted and sentenced certain individuals illustrated the societal values of Canadians as a whole.
The time pressure in bail court was considerably higher than the other courts I attended, and required the presiding judicial officer to utilise a judgecraft that would allow him to get through all of the cases scheduled on that day in a timely fashion. During my time in bail court, I noticed that almost every case was being re-scheduled, either due to a request by the Crown prosecutor or the defence counsel. The reasons stated by both lawyers varied; one of the prosecutors exclaimed that they would prefer to have another judge to preside over this case because their legal experience would give them a better understanding of the accused’s circumstances. The lawyer stated this would result in a fairer decision for his client. This exact behaviour is described by Mack and Anleu in their article, they state “This judgecraft involves…active intervention in the process, direct engagement with other participants, communication…use of legal knowledge, and practical problem solving” (Mack and Anleu 2007: 342). I quickly realized that bail court is so fast paced because the brunt of the legal work has yet to be conducted, which is the accused’s trial, and that the matter of setting bail is simple in comparison. The actions of the main actor in this court setting, the judge, were the most interesting because he used his powers to finish the court’s affairs quickly, as well as preserved judicial legitimacy by doling out sentences neutrally.
The proceedings of Bail court reminded me of a well-oiled machine, clearly the judge, and clerks, were used to getting through multiple cases every day, and were working as efficiently as possible. Taking a step back and looking at the court as a whole gave me insight on how our system works; it’s a balancing act that tries to ensure the rights of citizen are protect, but also that everything is completed in time. The judicial system seems to be under many restraints: the lawyers have their own schedules so they may not always be available, courts must be closed after a certain time, and the simplest reason is that the court employees are only payed to work a certain amount of hours per day. The decision, by the judge, to reschedule so many of the bail hearings can make a person question if anything gets done in court, but in reality his decisions helped facilitate the judicial process for both the crown and defense. Most of the time, a request for rescheduling the court date was because the lawyers were either not available, or they wanted to wait for some evidence that would help their case. This flexibility in court may make it look like our system is lazy, or unproductive, but it actually ensures that the Judge is given as much evidence as possible from both sides so that he can make a fair decision. Judgecraft is a really important skillset that helps create an efficient and fair judicial system.
In Bail court, the prosecutor for one of the cases was adamant in painting the accused as a “folk devil”, and stated that he is a danger to society and should not be granted bail, however, the judge ignored his request, deemed the accused innocent until proven guilty, and gave him bail until his trial. This event relates to the concept of moral entrepreneurs, and how they drum up incidents as more dangerous than they actually are in order to get tougher laws. Unlike what happened in the wildlings case, the judge did not allow his opinion to become influenced by statements irrelevant to the case and stuck to the facts, which is that this man has yet to be tried in court and found guilty. This tie in with the idea of enhancing judicial legitimacy by remaining neutral and not letting yourself become emotionally involved. The judge treated the accused as he would anyone else and treated him fairly. The accused was part of an ongoing police investigation, and the prosecutor clearly had an agenda to fulfill. With an investigator as his consultant during the trial, the prosecutor and the police already viewed this man as guilty. They wanted that man in custody at all costs, but the judge refused to comply. Once again, the Judge showed that he would not allow any external forces to pressure him in compromising the Canadian justice system.
In plea court, the focus of the trial is for the lawyers and judges to negotiate what the accused should be sentenced after admitting guilt.

My observations were that both the prosecutor and defence had a certain sentence in mind, which they would present to the court, and the judge would deliberate over which lawyer he should listen to. However, I was surprised to see the amount of back and forth that went on between everyone. These events relate to the writings of Blumberg where he states, “However, lawyers… have close and continuing relations with the prosecuting office and the court itself through discreet relations” (Abraham, 1997: 20). During one case in plea court, one of the prosecutor stated that the defence and her had already agreed to a sentence. It seems that the backdoor negotiations that Abraham wrote about are true. The reason this is important is because it displays to the common folk that the legal system is not as cut and dry as it seems. It shows that a person’s fate may be determined based on the debating skills of a person’s lawyer, rather than our legal codes. Furthermore, using the term “game” to describe how a portion of our legal system is conducted would belie the beliefs of many on how justice is dealt in our country. When people think of lawyers and court they imagine people fighting for the rights of people, that the innocent are protected and the guilty are punished. The haggling nature of backdoor negotiation on what sort of sentence will be handed out sort of cheapen the image people have of

justice.
Appearance of minorities in the courtroom occurred often, however the manner in which they were dealt with was very fair and considerate of their circumstances. In court, a lot of times I saw people from minorities being sentenced. However, the natures of their punishments were restorative in nature, rather than retributive. In our course readings on Gladue courts it mentions, “The focus of restorative justice was on creating harmony and responding to the needs of those most closely affected by the crime” (Roach and Rundin 2000: 362). The points of the courts of Gladue courts were to recognize that minorities live life with a sever handicap; their race and economic status out them at a sever disadvantage when compared to others. Furthermore, the punishments for them are restorative, which allows them more opportunities to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society than they would in a retributive system. In court, I observed the Judge openly stating that he understands that their circumstances have contributed to their present situation, and decided to give them a less harsh punishment then he normally would. I was not in a Gladue court, so it was quite surprising to see the Judge be so understanding, rather than be quick to sentence them to jail. Although, out of the many minorities I witnessed in court, only one was sentenced to a truly rehabilitative program; the others just had lighter punishments. The importance of seeing such behaviour in a normal court in Canada is immense. The Judges understood that not all criminals are born evil, a statement echoed by a judge multiple times during court proceedings. The court was not restorative, and the sentences were not all rehabilitative programs, however, the judges were all sensitive to the status of minorities in society and judged them accordingly.
During my time spent in court I observed our criminal justice system in action. On paper, our criminal code states that people found guilty of performing criminal acts will be penalized, however, time and time again the Judges delivered statements directly contradicting that notion. Entering a court for the first time I had many pre-conceived notions on our legal system, which is that it’s tough on crime. In addition, it was also illuminating to see how lawyers conduct themselves on court. To learn about the backroom deals that occurs prior to trials, and how they negotiate in apathetic tones regarding a person’s future, changed my views on courtroom proceedings. All of them were dispelled after seeing a court that was highly efficient, extremely considerate of everyone’s wishes, and sensitive to the accused’s personal situation. The course readings that I had done in class made me believe that our own system would be archaic and backwards, but instead it seemed very reflective of the values of Canada as a multicultural society. Altogether, my time spent in court allowed me to view my course readings from a new perspective, and gave me a first-hand look on how those themes and ideas are applied in real life.