The court room, also branded as a “theatre of the absurd” is habitually recognised as a revered space which exhibits and explores distinctive features and the use of power. The inequality of power in the courtroom was predominantly seen during the observations and is unmistakably highlighted through the architectural design and spacing, the dialect and the clothing worn by the court personnel. Fundamentally accentuating through these displays of power, the injustices often seen in the courtrooms.
The ethnomethodology in the courtroom underscores the dynamics of power, exhibiting the different ranks of individuals found at court. The abuse of power through language – both verbal and visual was highly noticed during both the criminal and civil
…show more content…
This refers to the lawyers, judges, judicial personnel etc. This is due to their offhand knowledge and familiarity of the courtroom in comparison to those who are merely visiting/are on trial. This perfectly compares to a theatre, a stage where the local actors would be more comfortable and accustomed to the audience and the attention received whilst the extras – or the defendant in the case of the court, would be more uncomfortable. The case I witnessed at the criminal court had the defendant running extremely late and upon the judge’s entrance, the look he bared was extremely cold and calculating with every worker at court, treating him with dignified respect. After waiting for some time for the defendant and his personnel to arrive however, the judge relinquished his “act” and almost as if a barrier had been broken, the friendly banter surged and the separation caused by the imbalance of power, was …show more content…
The distinctive levels of power could also be seen through the heterogeneous rooms used for the different cases on probation. In the civil court, where the condemnation was for a ‘minor’ matter, the room was much smaller and more intimate, however the modern texture of the room, leaves a destitute feeling on the offender. In the criminal court, the room was much larger and a lot colder. Stipulating a more eerie feeling especially one of gloom and dread, a technique used to intimidate and unnerve the accused. This aura of dread is moreover enhanced by the choice of furniture and colourings of the walls. Predominantly observed in in the criminal court were not only was the judge placed on an elevated seat but the audience too was given, hard benches to sit on, contrasting the securer seats offered in the civil
a relationship to the courtroom and his cell, but also connected to the geographical setting of the
In the old bailey court the atmosphere of the court was very serious and formal, and vastly tense. This was similar to the atmosphere of the magistrate’s court. The layout of the old bailey was different to those of other crown courts, where the public gallery was separate
“I think there’s just one kind of folks. Folks” (Lee 304). Harper Lee is the renowned author of To Kill a Mockingbird which was inspired by the real events of the Scottsboro Trials. Throughout her novel, Lee indirectly references the case by creating characters, events, and symbols that resemble and contrast the case. These elements allow the novel to emerge with a more realistic and historic plot. In particular, the similarities and differences between Judge Horton and Judge Taylor, Victoria and Mayella, and the atmosphere of the courtroom are most prevalent. By examining these components one will be able to respect the historical features present in Harper Lee’s fictional literary phenomenon, To Kill a Mockingbird.
The late 1700s and early 1800s were a time full of expansion and innovation in the United States of America. The country was getting bigger, both in population and in geographic size, and the government was getting more powerful as well. This was because of the new Constitution that was put into place in 1787 that replaced the Articles of Confederation and took most of the power away from the individual states and gave it to the federal government. When the Constitution was ratified, both Brutus (believed to be Robert Yates), and Alexander Hamilton were in a debate over the potential power of the federal government, and more specifically, the power of the Supreme Court in Federalist 78 and Brutus’ eleventh and twelfth letters. Alexander Hamilton supported the proposed system and expressed his belief that the judiciary did not have too much power by any means. Brutus was more concerned that the court would simply side with the government and would therefore have too much power over the states. In 1803 one of the biggest landmark cases ever reached the Court, Marbury v. Madison. This case was not directly about the power of the court, but similar to most Supreme Court cases, it turned into a debate about something more crucial. By reading John Marshall’s opinion on the Marbury v. Madison case, it is apparent that Brutus originally had the better idea about the Supreme Court’s power due to his overwhelming wisdom and excellent foresight into what the judiciary would eventually become.
Throughout history there have always been issues concerning judicial courts and proceedings: issues that include everything from the new democracy of Athens, Greece, to the controversial verdict in the Casey Anthony trial as well as the Trayvon Martin trial. One of the more recent and ever changing issues revolves around cameras being allowed and used inside courtrooms. It was stated in the Handbook of Court Administration and Management by Stephen W. Hays and Cole Blease Graham, Jr. that “the question of whether or not to allow cameras in American courtrooms has been debated for nearly fifty years by scholars, media representatives, concerned citizens, and others involved in the criminal justice system.” The negatives that can be attached to the presence of cameras inside a courtroom are just as present, if not more present, than the positives that go hand-in-hand with the presence of cameras.
The hierarchy of the court is made in a way that screams power. The judge would take the high seat in the court. This is illustrative of God. The judge has a position of true power; he is seated at the top of the court, looking down on everyone. This alone suggests that the judge believes he is above the working class. It shows his power and authority from his position alone. The intimidation of looking up to someone and answering all his questions will, again reinforce their place in society. Thus, power and authority is maintained through the structure of the court. It is a simple reminder that the working class are not above the law – the law being the ones who make it, the ruling
The courtroom is a ritualised space, involving costume, language, spatial organisation and so on, and courts, therefore, constitute performative exercises of power. Discuss some of the ways in which courts demonstrate power and/or power relations.
The following assertion intends to provide an in-depth insight into my personal experience observing a trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria. This paper will outline a selection of many pressing issues noticed throughout my observation, more specifically those regarding the law and language in legal arenas along with symbolic and architectural traditions that reinforce prejudice towards those from a low socio-economic background and ethnic minority groups. Furthermore, it will argue how symbolism, architecture and practices within a court are in place to create a power dynamic and reinforce the courts British-'western' sovereignty and royal-like wealth which in turn intimidates members of the community especially from ethnically diverse or disadvantaged groups. I intend to demonstrate the power and authority of judges and the courts by drawing comparisons between the judges status in a court room with royalty and religious pastors, through the observation of attire, title and actual positioning in a court room.
The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.
“Witness for the Prosecution” superbly demonstrated a realist view of the operating procedures in a courtroom. The actors within the courtroom were easy to identify, and the steps transitioned smoothly from the arrest to the reading of the verdict. The murder trial of Leonard Vole provided realistic insight into how laws on the books are used in courtroom proceedings. With the inferior elements noted, the superior element of the court system in “Witness for the Prosecution” was the use of the adversary system. Both sides of the adversary system were flawlessly protrayed when the prosecution and defense squared off in the courtroom.
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.
the study takes place may have more of an effect on child Ps than we
The courtroom is a place where cases are heard and deliberated as evidence is produced to prove whether the accused person is innocent or guilty. Different courtroom varies depending on the hierarchy and the type of cases, they deliberate upon in the courtroom. In the United States, the courts are closely interlinked through a hierarchical system at either the state or the federal level. Therefore, the court must have jurisdiction before it takes upon a case, deliberate, and come up with a judgment on it. The criminal case is different from the civil cases, especially when it comes to the court layout. In this essay, I will explain how I experienced a courtroom visit and the important issues are learnt from the visit.
Symbols play a role in demonstrating the lack of balance within Kafka’s system. Josef K meets with Titorelli, the painter who holds strong influence, and Titorelli remarks that, “Justice needs to remain still, otherwise the scales will move about and it won’t be possible to make a just verdict” (187). This statement refers to the symbolic scales of justice within a painting and further demonstrates the unjust nature of the court. Justice cannot be a still concept, it must evolve and take into account the specific time and space it exists within. In modern legal systems create this through the usage of mitigating factors, jury trials, and the leniency judges are afforded. However, Kafka’s system is intended to be the opposite, a man made creation of total justice that is beyond the reach of the accused. Such a court system is perverse in interpretation of the law and unjust. Moreover, symbols build on the strength of the court and the totality of power judges are afforded. In discussing another painting Josef asks, “‘That is a judge sitting on a judge’s chair isn’t it?’ ‘Yes, but that judge isn’t very high up and he’s never sat on any throne like that, he’s sitting like the president of the court’” (187). Judges within the court system depict themselves as entitled and powerful. When coupled with a lack of public oversight, the totality of
A judge in a courtroom has many powers. They can decide who can speak and who has to be quite. One power a judge has that has been given to them in early history is contempor. Contemnor is when the judge holds a person to be in contempt of court. Federal and state courts hold this power, that way it keeps the court in an orderly function in administering justice.