NCJ Number
45832
Journal
Urban Life Volume: 5 Issue: 2 Dated: (JULY 1976) Pages: 165-188
Date Published
1976
Length
24 pages
Annotation
THE DYNAMICS OF COURT SOCIAL CONTROL AND DEFENDANTS' ACCOUNTS OF THEIR GRIEVANCES ARE EXAMINED WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL, STRUCTURAL, SOCIAL, INTERPERSONAL, AND DOMINANCE FACTORS OF THE INTERACTION.
Abstract
THE EMPIRICAL MATERIALS FOR THIS INTERACTIONAL ANALYSIS WERE DRAWN FROM 4 MONTHS' OBSERVATION IN THE TRAFFIC COURT OF A SMALL CITY. THE PHYSICAL SETTING IN WHICH DEFENDANTS WAITED TO BE SUMMONED WAS CHARACTERIZED BY SMALL JOINED-TOGETHER CHAIRS, BARE WALLS, ABSENCE OF DECORATION, DULL COLORS, AND COVERED WINDOWS, WHILE THE JUDGE'S AREA CONTAINED PADDED CHAIRS AND COLORFUL DECORATIONS. THUS, THE SETTING ITSELF EMPHASIZES THE SUBORDINATE, INFERIOR, AND DEPRIVED ROLE OF THE DEFENDANT. THE COURTROOM INTERACTIONS OCCURRED IN THREE PHASES: THE PREENCOUNTER POMP, THE ARRAIGNMENT STATEMENT WHICH IN ITS FORM AND LANGUAGE PRESAGED THE BUREAUCRATIC NATURE OF THE ENCOUNTER BETWEEN THE JUDGE AND THE DEFENDANT, AND THE INTERCHANGE BETWEEN JUDGE AND DEFENDANT. THAT INTERCHANGE WAS A FORMALIZED STRUCTURE WITH LITTLE VARIATION FROM THE CALLING FORTH AND GREETING OF DEFENDANT THROUGH RESOLUTION. THE INTERACTION DISPLAYED A NUMBER OF FEATURES WHICH DEFINE AND CONTROL A POTENTIALLY DISRUPTIVE PROCESS (THE AIRING OF GRIEVANCES) IN THE COURT'S FAVOR. THESE INCLUDE MAINTENANCE OF SOCIAL DISTANCE, DOMINATION OF THE INTERACTION BY THE JUDGE, ROLE SOCIALIZATION OF THE DEFENDANT, AND A PROCESS CHARACTERIZED BY ROUTINE, RIGIDITY, AND RAPIDITY. REGARDLESS OF THE PLEAS THEY ENTER, DEFENDANTS ARE ALL EXPRESSING DISCONTENT WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ARE SOLICITING COMPENSATION. GENERALLY GRIEVANCES WERE EXPRESSED AS EXCUSES OR JUSTIFICATIONS. EXCUSES MAY INCLUDE PRESENTATION OF DOCUMENTARY OR TECHNICAL EVIDENCE, LOGICAL PROOF, DENIAL OF THE OCCURRENCE, OR DENIAL OF CULPABILITY. JUSTIFICATIONS MAY INCLUDE EXTERNAL CONDITIONS BEYOND THE DEFENDANT'S CONTROL, THE EXISTENCE OF A HIGHER MORAL RULE OR NEED, OR MAY INVOLVE APPEALS TO COMMON HUMANITY, CITING THE LACK OF PREVIOUS OFFENSES, OR NORMS. SOME DEFENDANTS RESORTED TO CONFESSION, IRRELEVANCIES, OR HIGHLY DUBIOUS EXPLANATIONS. JUSTIFICATIONS GENERALLY FUNCTION TO MAINTAIN PLAUSIBILITY AND TO ESTABLISH AN EMPATHIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUDGE AND DEFENDANT. THE JUDGE'S RESPONSES TO GRIEVANCES GENERALLY INVOLVED DISPOSITIONAL BARGAINING OR APPEAL TO LEGAL AND BUREAUCRATIC IDEALS, WHICH SERVED TO CONVINCE DEFENDANTS THAT JUSTICE HAD PREVAILED WHILE MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT. TO MANAGE INTRAROLE CONFLICT BETWEEN HUMANITARIAN AND ENFORCEMENT IDEALS, THE JUDGE ASSERTED THE PRIORITY OF RULES, REFERRED THE DEFENDANT TO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, OR CALLED ON CHERISHED ABSTRACTIONS. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE TRAFFIC COURT OBSERVED IN THIS STUDY WAS FLEXIBLE AND EFFECTIVE IN FILTERING OUT GRIEVANCES; HOWEVER, IT LACKED TRUE SUBSTANCE AND WAS PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE TO GRIEVERS' RIGHTS TO TRIAL. (JAP)