The Influence of Spaces in Addressing Legal Requirements - Assignment Example

Court Report Name Institution Name Instructor’s Name Course Name and Code Date Introduction In the criminal court systems, the local courts are distinctive configuration but they are required to operate in compartmentalized models of legal justice. The uniqueness associated with local courts is the legal formalities that are premised on temporal space or amount of time. The temporal space can be defined as the time that shapes justice and the influence of different types of cases information on the determination of the temporal space. I will also identify how temporal spaces interact with physical spaces and participatory spaces. The definition of physical space is the orientation at the court while participatory space is the interaction of different individuals in the court. The aim of the paper is not only to address the influence of spaces in addressing legal requirements but also to address other components, such as legal consciousness that is important in the lower courts. Silbey and Ewick argue that the legal consciousness is an integral component in sustaining the requirements of law1. Other variables that are associated with legal consciousness include should be understood by different stakeholders, resisted, experienced and be informative of justice. Interaction of the Physical Space and the Temporal Space At the Downing Centre, the local courtroom can be compared with a marketplace because the people were required to queue near the door while listening to the magistrate calling court cases. It is comparable with a marketplace where a food vendor calls customers based on the receipt numbers. The courtroom was continuously full and busy since definite time was not allowed for the cases. This is an example where the physical space of the courtroom is constrained by the lack of definite time in hearing the case(s). Such an environment is not conducive because the people are unable to determine the time for their cases and also does not incorporate aspects of individual rights. People are compared with objects that require organization and arrangement. The environment can be conducive to some populations that have been addressing similar challenges. For example, welfare poor usual have minimal spaces and lack authority to advance their human right requirements. The congestion at the courts negates/disadvantages the legal system because of disillusionment. Furthermore, the physical space constraints the number of individuals who can enter the courtroom, which can be seen as not championing the requirements of transparency and publicity. It brings into consideration aspects of trivialization ideology. Interaction of Participatory Space and Temporal Space The behavior within the court shapes the association of different entities based on the temporal constraints: the purpose of the court is usually justice, but the aspect of justice is shifted from justice to efficiency2. The aspect of efficiency can easily affect the practical justice because the witness can be interrupted to provide a clearer understanding of an issue. In such instances, the witnesses can be obscured while trying to recollect some important information about the event/case3. The interaction also can influence or affect the perceived justice. In one of the instances, when a witness was presenting a long statement about the difficulties the individual faced, the magistrate cut the witness short by stating that life is short before proceeding and handing a sentence. Even though the sentence was handed, the witness may not feel that justice was dispensed accordingly because the views and aspirations of the defendants were not incorporated into the decision-making. Moreover, the decision may be appropriate based on the circumstances and arguments of the case but the transition from emotional to legal formalism within a short time may affect the aspect of the case. The unrepresented defendants also, sometimes, face numerous challenges including moral rectitude and the aspects of sensibility, identity and biography of their participatory space4. This was evident during my time at the court because the defendants often emotional explained relational implications and related large social aspects. The unfamiliar legal formalities intervened with the environment because the different of social and legal requirements exist. Thibaut and Walker stated that the desire for voice is aimed at presenting an argument in a compelling manner so that they are able to convince the judge to present a favorable outcome5. Hence, if a defendant is not heard, the defendant may feel that the justice system was not effective. Representation is another component that creates challenges in the local courts. There is an aspect of moral participatory of the lawyer who is representing the defendant. The lawyer has to advance the directives of the defendant while arguing in the courtroom. However, the defendant may feel that the lawyer did not address the issues completely. For example in the Campbelltown court, there was an instance in which the defendant was trying to get the lawyer’s attention with the intention of conveying a message that may champion their argument6. The lawyer was not able to recognize the signal or requirement of the defendant, and at the same time, the police prosecutor reprimanded the defendant. Moreover, it was common for the defendant’s lawyer to seek additional directions from the defendant. The information sought may be significant, and the information may be basic in nature. Nevertheless, the aspects of judgecraft at the local courts were a place of innovation and development. Numerous magistrates were able to balance the requirements of formalism and engagement resulting in the creation of informal language. For example, the judge may joke depending on the circumstances, which may improve accessibility fundamentals7. For example, a judge has immense authority, and if the judge jokes and becomes friendly, it increase accessibility and reduces the strain at the court. Furthermore, the level of knowledge during the court especially when a defendant is unrepresented creates challenges but if the judge provides assistance, it contributes to perceived and speedy justice. The problem in such instances is the levels and consistency of judicial intervention. In other instances, the judge may not mediate when it comes to knowledge asymmetry, which makes it complicated to laypeople that represent self. The judicial intervention or support from the judiciary raises some concerns. For example, it becomes difficult to view the judicial intervention between the legal requirements and the expectations of the citizens. It is a dilemma because formal and impartial judicial process may make the people feel they were not treated effectively. On the other hand, greater intervention negates the requirements of the legal system resulting in adversarial legitimacy that the legal system advances8. Beyond Conventional Legitimacy Arguments: Taking Account of Temporal Spaces The focus of the judicial legitimacy has been addressed continuously, but the aspects of adversarial processes in the short temporal frames of the local courts have not been addressed. Questions may arise on why the adversarial processes level is compared to inefficiency in summary offences. When the due processes are skipped, the adversarial magistrates will become detached and formal since the magistrates will be looking for facts rather than addressing the legal questions. Such example of problem highlights the judicial bureaucratization9. The lack of legality and temporal spaces contributes to the occurrence of administrative activities, which the judges have to fulfill. Therefore, if the local court advances the short temporal frames, the boundaries between the executive and judiciary becomes blurred. Individual Rights The societal interests are important to the judicial process when compared to individual’s interests when it comes to fair process. Packer’s crime control model advances the efficiency of the process rather than long processes, which negates the societal requirement to address a criminal offence10. However, I do not fully agree with such sentiments when it comes to societal interest protection as the underlying principle of the model11. The approach in which summary cases were addressed was premised on institutionalized approach to considering any justifications. The triviality of the cases was the important justification for the case or decision. During the observatory periods, I was able to see that the magistrate took a long time before proceeding in the court cases. The court members had to wait for long before the magistrate came because the magistrate wanted to deal with more than one case. After completion of the cases, the magistrate adjourned the court for long periods until two cases were on the log. The long breaks were followed by short cases that were administered easily. The magistrate should have assigned the cases long periods to enable arguments but the approach the magistrates took created the link between constrained temporal spaces and perceived triviality of offences. The analysis of the situation enabled me to understand the importance of critical models in determining values, which influences the criminal law; the theoretical model should address the identified challenges to improve the visibility of processes12. The societal interests should not only be pursued but incorporate the aims of crime control model. Thinking about the societal requirements, it disadvantages some populations resulting in an increase in a number of prisoners: for example, most prisoners are unemployed and illiterate13. Moreover, the local courts basis different fundamentals when sentencing the vulnerable groups. Therefore, the individuals or populations who are a disadvantage because of local courts temporal pressures are the individuals with the smallest voice. The current representation of the legal system is premised on wide period, impartial judges and zealous advocates in the formal processes. The significance of the judicial process is aimed towards the crime rather than the interests of the individual: the trivializing of an individual’s rights is directly treated with the trivialization of the crime. Hence, formalities may not be enough to address the “adversarial” requirements. Read More