Fairness and Equal Treatment in the Court of Law - Essay Example

Name Institution Date Courtrooms have the function of presenting the public with an opportunity to defend themselves in case a conflict arises between them and other parties. In the contemporary society, everyone acknowledges the power and functions of a court of law. Courts are ritualized places where disagreements are settled amicably through the use of prescribed legal procedures as enshrined in the books of law. Of note, courts are also places where justice, fairness and impartial trial can be heard so that it would not result to any drawback to either of the party entangled in the disagreement. In the court of law, each party is given an opportunity to present and exonerate itself. However, the common procedure is that a party choses a legal representative. The physical appearance of the court is virtually similar in all countries. The judge occupies the central part of the room albeit towards one side of the room. The physical elevation speaks volumes of the immense power that the judge wields in an also powerful room. For fairness and equal treatment in the court of law, interpreters must be present in the court of law and they usually sit in front of the judge. (Carlen, 1976:50). The presence of various actors in the court of law invokes a sense colossal power. The power and responsibilities vested in these individuals makes the court be respected and venerated both by the public as well as the actors themselves. The general public has significantly lesser powers and is the lowest actors in a court of law. Their main function is to oversee the process of judgment. Carlen (1976; 49) notes that within the courts of law, there is tacit control of spatial and temporal properties under the keen eye of the police and the judicial employees. The defense and the prosecution lawyers in the court room make it even more significant as these equal elements breathe in life to the spatial and temporal properties. Carlen (1976:50) also advances that the courts assume “a formal and ritualistic social setting; in it social space is pre-formed and distributed by the fixtures and fittings which comprise its definitive physical dimensions.” The role played by the court is very important. The formality is usually taken as an imperative aspect of the court and thus implicit rules of spacing and placing are taken very seriously so as not to leave room for different interpretations. Salancil and Pfeffer describe power as “the ability if those who possess it to bring about the outcomes they desire” (1977:3). On the other hand, Ross (2001) quotes Weber defining it as “the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his or her will despite resistance…” (p53). All thee definitions show that power lies in someone’s ability to control their own actions as well as control the actions of other, despite resistance of some sort. In the court room, there are clearly powerful and powerless participants. The source of power id institutional and is mainly expressed through the use of language. It is important to note that, in a court of law, the magistrate wields immense power which emerges through the use of language. The language (especially legal discourse) is fundamentally complex so that only the judicial personnel and lawyers understand the jargon. Fairclough (1992) contends that the nature of the correlation between the actors decides who controls the discourse with such relationship being conditioned by the society. Bourdieu adds that, “the use of language, the manner as much as the substance of discourse, depends on the social position of the speaker, which governs the access he can have to the language of the institution, that is, to the official, orthodox and legitimate speech”(1991:109). Therefore, the magistrate wields immense power over the rest of the actors in the court room. Of note, the rules of evidence show that only the lawyers and the bench can ask questions and control the flow of information, whereas the witnesses can only respond to questions and not deviate from the pertinent themes and topics presented to them. The court dress code speaks volumes about the power wielded by the actors. The legal dress code as observed in the court room is a part of self-respect and professionalism with little exception. The outfit of magistrate and lawyers with judicial robes seems to be a mark of dignity and devotion towards court and justice. Carlen (1976:53) describes the importance of visual presentations of the actors, “In contrast to their unceremonious and coercive presentation of defendants, magistrates, policemen, solicitors and other court personnel all project visual images of themselves, and verbally embellished images of each other…”In essence, the court dress code explains the sanctity and pledge of the lawyers and magistrates towards judicial institutions and augments their obligation for the profession (Waker, 1980: p234). At a macro level, the court dress is meant to distinguish between different registers like medicine, military clerics among others. Professionally, the function of the court dress is to differentiate between various subdivisions of the similar professional corporation. Case in point, the court dress is meant to distinguish between judges, notaries, solicitors and lawyers. At another level, the court dress is meant to serve the purpose if visual communication to the lay public. It is not surprising for the lay public to confuse the actors of the court if they are not wearing the accepted regalia. Therefore, for the sake of the lay public, the court dress comes in handy in order to avoid misperception and confusion in the court room. Consequently, the court dress is part of a conscious exertion to reiterate both the dignity of the courts and their allegiance to the judicial institutions. The dress code in the court room is a symbol of importance in underlining the power of the courts where they are adopted. Moreover, the dress of members of the bench, lawyers, magistrates and barristers after the restoration underlines a much more detailed hierarchy of legal officers (Rahman, 2010: p27). The organization of the court room also brings out the element of power and who wields most of it. Carlen (1976: 49) states, “the spacing and placing of people on public occasions is strategic to their ability to participate effectively in them.” Essentially, the courts are places where people go to seek interpretations and justice vis a vis their complaints. Therefore, there must be the fairest organization of the room so as to accord every party vantage position and view in order for them to feel part of the process. Glazer and Lilla assert that, “the court room is the setting for the administration of justice under the law and as such is the heart of the courthouse.” (p209). The layout of the courtroom is thus significant to the court proceedings and impressions of the participants. In the courtroom observed, the defense and the prosecution are equal adversaries and thus provided with seats at assigned tables in the center of the court room facing the judge. The general publics present in the room are silent observers and are seated at the back of the room also facing the judge. This organization sets in motion the hierarchical power with the magistrate wielding more powers than the defense and the prosecution. The general public has the least powers being silent arbiters whose only power emerges during the voting process and some legislation. Another significant positioning of furniture is the jury box that is set aside intentionally away from the axial relationship of the lawyers, magistrate and the public. Glazer and Lilla (1987) further explicate, “The architectural forms should be seen as a “sign system through which society tries to communicate its ideal model of relationship between judges, prosecutors, jurors and others involved in the judicial proceedings” (p210). The physical organization of the courtroom is not meant to complicate the judicial proceedings. It is meant to bring out the element of structure in the court. In terms of structure, one looks at who wilds power with regards to the organization. The magistrate, by virtue of his or her position and responsibility in the court room, is conspicuously visible because of slight elevation above the rest of the actors in the court. Similarly, the prosecution and the defense are set apart from the public in front of the judge. The court room, therefore, as stated above is a ritualized place whose actors have immense power. This power is brought out in various forms including the choice of language or register. They usually have complex legal language that alienates the ordinary person from the court proceedings. The court room dress is also symbolic and meant to set apart the functionalities and powers of the individuals therein. The magistrate and the lawyers do not wear the same attire and this emanates from the principle of separation of powers and functions. The magistrate is senior than the lawyers and in turn the lawyers (on their part) have more powers than the general public. Consequently, the place remains a ritualized space in the heart of judiciary. Word Count: 1510 References Carlen, P. 1976. The staging of magistrate's justice. British Journal of Criminology. 16(1): 48-55 Fairclough, Norman.(1993). Discourse and Social Change. New York: Wiley Glazer, N and Lilla, M (1987) The Public Face of Architecture: Civic Culture and Public Spaces. New York: Simon and Schuster. Pfeffer, J and Salancik, G. (1968).External Control of Organizations. Stanford: Stanford University Press Rahman, Romel. (2010). Costumes of Judges and Advocates are Not Season Friendly, Ain Odhikar (Law and Rights), The Daily Prothom Alo, P. 27. Ross, Hamish.(2001). Law as a Social Institution. Antwerpen Toronto: Hart Publishing Smith, P. and Natalier, K. 2005. Understanding Criminal Justice: Sociological Perspectives. London: Sage. Waker, R. J. (1980). The Australian Legal System. London: Butterworth 5th Edition p. 234. Read More