Observation of Australian Court - Essay Example

The court demonstrates great power relation in the exercise of its jurisprudence, this is symbolized by the setting of its procedures, the architecture of the courtroom, the procedures, and the presentation of oneself from the judges to the defendants. This is illustrated as stated below:
The Architecture: this comprises the structure of the courtroom about the power relationships within the courtroom, the judge's position was raised above the rest the depicting high authority of the judge towards the other members. This does not accommodate equal power distribution among the participants. The fundamental architecture design of the courtroom, complimented by precisely calculated use and placement of furniture, did not accommodate equal power distribution among all courtroom participants (Carlen, 1976, pg50). Instead, such architectural features awarded the presiding judge with the position with the most superior power (Carlen, 1976, pg50).

The judge's place was elevated making the defendant inferior to the judge, the judge's dock was the highest positioning of the courtroom having it also centrally placed, ritualizing the judge's position as equal and non-partisan to any side. The defendant's dock was placed isolated with a police officer standing beside the dock this showed the position of defense as the case was to proceed. The furniture in the courtroom is set so that the occupants are facing and focused on the witness box which is placed at a lower level than any other furniture item allowing all the members of the courtroom to have a clear focus on the witness (Greenberg, 1976, pg87). Arguably, while looking down upon the defendant extents intimidation to witness, which makes them understand their position in the power hierarchy of the courtroom ensuring clear consciousness of the need to comply with the laid down system of the will and codes of the court.

The presentation: the judge's presence was followed by a peculiar silence depicting authority, on arrival on his docket the judge ordered all the people to rise, this was followed by addressing the attorneys of both the plaintiff's side and the defendant's side. This illustrated the authority of the judge. The judge's and the attorney’s rhetoric have shown some high-level legal discourse in the manner of speech in the courtroom (Smith, 2005, pg125). The complex, academic, and highly formal speeches were directed to each other by the attorneys and the judge. The legal representative's fluency in employment and comprehension of legal discourse reflected their background in tertiary education
The judge's physical appearance which is merely a manifestation of his attire is typical, a black gown with a white collar, and a white curly wig. The police and the bailiffs will also wear uniforms which distinguishes them from the other people present in the courtroom. This demonstrates their roles and authority levels (Rapoport, 1982, pg43). The length of turns of the occupants of the courtroom, as they participate in the proceedings of the court, showed the power hierarchy in the set system of the court. The judge and the attorneys gave lengthy speeches as the trial was being introduced and later and the end of the trial displays their higher status in terms of authority over the witnesses and the jurors in the courtroom.

When the attorney issued asking questions, which are made up of slightly more or just a lesser number of statements, this transcript questions and statements to the witness with only the witness contributing statements to the interrogation (Carlen, 1978, pg97). This is a clear indication of the authority of the lawyer over the witness since; the lawyer asks the questions while the witness is compelled to answer them without the ability to ask him, this power is unidirectional from the lawyer to the witness with no otherwise. This also shows the willingness of the witness to cooperate with the code of conduct of the court by only answering questions and challenging and trying to have the ability to question the lawyer or attorney (Rapoport, 1982, pg67). The questions asked by the lawyer in the interactions were a matter of answering with no or yes answers establishing the lawyer’s authority further as opposed to explanatory answers, which are lengthy. The questioning of this nature allows the Lawyer to be in a position to control the direction the examination takes; this will gloss the information, which was likely to be brought up.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the courtroom is a social setting that is highly structured and its operations have been ritualized this is because their certain norms and rules that one is required to adhere to such as standing as the judge enters the courtroom and addressing him/her as ‘your honor’. The atmosphere is also very reserved with modest dressing, and people conduct themselves properly and respectfully. This is repeated in every other trial making ritualized and the power hierarchy is defined and demonstrated. This language is used by emphasizing the separation, exclusion, and manipulation of questions. In essence, this means that the language used in the courtroom intimidates the inferiors such as defendants and lawyers. Moreover, this language aims at causing fear and stress to the defendant. Moreover, defendants who are not familiar with courtroom structure can be intimidated and remain passive. Read More