NCJ Number
47926
Date Published
1978
Length
6 pages
Annotation
AN EXAMINATION IS UNDERTAKEN OF THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONING OF A TYPICAL TRAFFIC COURT.
Abstract
IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF SITUATIONS WITHIN WHICH PEOPLE LABELED 'DEVIANT' TRY TO HANDLE THEIR IDENTITIES, OBSERVERS SAT IN ON SEVERAL SESSIONS OF A MUNICIPAL TRAFFIC COURT. AN ANALYSIS IS PRESENTED OF THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF A TRAFFIC COURT; WITHIN THIS SETTING DEFENDANTS ARE FACED WITH AN ORGANIZATION WHICH THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND. A DESCRIPTION OF THE COURT IS PROVIDED, AS ARE EXCERPTS AND EXAMPLES OF INTERACTION BETWEEN THE JUDGE AND DEFENDANTS WHICH REVEAL SEVERAL ASPECTS OF THE COURT ORGANIZATION. THOSE DEFENDANTS THAT CHOOSE TO APPEAR IN TRAFFIC COURT TEND TO BE THOSE ORDINARY CITIZENS WHO CANNOT AFFORD ANOTHER CITATION ON THEIR RECORD AND ALSO THOSE WHO FEEL THEMSELVES TO BE INNOCENT OF THE CLAIMS MADE AGAINST THEM. WHAT TAKES PLACE IN COURT IS A NEGOTIATION BETWEEN THE JUDGE AND THE DEFENDANTS WHICH HAS LESS TO DO WITH JUSTICE AND THE DETERMINATION OF GUILT THAN IT DOES WITH NEUTRALIZING THE SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE AUTHORITIES AND EXPEDITING JUSTICE. TYPICALLY, JUDGES CHARACTERIZED A DEFENDANT'S DAY IN TRAFFIC COURT AS EMBODYING ELEMENTS OF A DEGRADATION CEREMONY. BOTH THE EVENT AND THE PERPETRATOR ARE SEEN IN AN OUT-OF-THE-ORDINARY CHARACTER; THE JUDGE IS SEEN AS A PUBLIC FIGURE WITH NO PRIVATE GAIN TO BE MADE FROM THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE DENUNCIATION WHICH HE TYPICALLY DELIVERS IS TOUTED AS BEING IN THE NAME OF SUPER-PERSONAL VALUES -- CONSIDERATION OF OTHERS AND SAFETY. HOWEVER, IT IS ARGUED HERE THAT THE TRAFFIC COURT IS UNSUITED AND UNSUCCESSFUL IN ATTEMPTS TO SUGGEST A DEGRADATION CEREMONY; THE WRATH OF THE COURT IS GENERALLY LESS MORAL THAN FINANCIAL, AND THE COURTROOM'S AURA OF FEARSOME MAJESTY USUALLY DISSOLVE INTO AN ATMOSPHERE OF A WELL-MEANING BUREAUCRACY AT WORK. IT IS ARGUED THAT TRAFFIC COURT JUDGES HAVE TWO GOALS. THE JUDGE'S PRIMARY GOAL IS TO EXPEDITE THE WORKINGS OF THE COURT. LIKE A PROBATION OFFICER, HE MAKES NO ATTEMPT TO AFFIX GUILT OR INNOCENCE; HIS CONCERN IS TO CLEAR TO COURT CALENDAR BY THE EASIEST MEANS AVAILABLE, A GOAL TYPICALLY ACHIEVED BY CONVINCING DEFENDANTS TO PLEAD NO CONTEST. THE SECOND GOAL IS AN OUTGROWTH OF THE FIRST, AND CONCERNS THE METHOD OF DISCREDITING WITNESSES, USUALLY ONLY THE DEFENDANTS THEMSELVES. THIS PROCESS HAS TWO FUNCTIONS: FIRST, TO MAKE THOSE WHO OBJECTIVELY MIGHT HAVE A GOOD CASE FEEL THEIR CHANCES OF CONVINCING A JURY WOULD NOT BE VERY GOOD; AND SECOND, TO DISCOURAGE THOSE WHOSE APPEARANCE IN COURT IS MOTIVATED SOLELY BY CONSIDERATIONS OF REDUCING THE FINE. BARGAINING FROM A POSITON OF GREATER POWER, THE COURT HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING ABLE TO MANIPULATE THE DEFENDANT INTO ACCEPTING ITS OPTIMAL DISPOSITION OF THE CASE -- THE FASTEST AND MOST IMMEDIATE RESOLUTION OF THE MATTER. IT IS TO ACHIEVE A NO CONTEST PLEA THAT THE MECHANISM OF DISCREDITING IS USED. OFTEN THE DEFENDANT IS FURTHER PRESSURED BY AN OFFER OF A REDUCED PENALTY FOR A GUILTY PLEA. (KBL) PLEA. (KBL)