Despite the appealing notion of blind and fair justice, many question the existence of this ideal in reality – and rightly so. Many of the challenges to law’s claim of impartiality concern the influence of social characteristics such as race or sex when they should be irrelevant. Marc Galanter introduces a more structural argument, related to the frequency with which one litigates, bringing disputes before a court. Galanter claims that those who regularly engage in similar litigation, whom he labels “repeat players” (RPs) have multiple advantages over “one-shotters” (OSs), who rarely enter the forum of law, where courts interpret and apply official rules to settle disputes, in their ability to achieve desired legal outcomes. The fact that …show more content…
Though not all repeat players are necessarily society’s “haves” – some of the residents of the urban neighborhood studied by Sally Engle Merry are examples of exceptions – in American society, most are. One often thinks of “haves” and “have nots” in terms of material differences, but where Galanter adds the most value to the discussion of inequality is his explanation of the more dynamic advantages that come from more frequent legal engagement and which continually reinforce this inequality.
Part of Galanter’s project in identifying the mechanism behind systematic biases in the courts is his desire to prescribe potential avenues for reform. It is not only important to recognize that the haves come out ahead but also why they do. Though he does discuss tangible differences in resources, including access to specialized knowledge, those factors alone can miss the less tangible benefits that certain parties enjoy. For example, due to their ongoing contact with the court, RPs uniquely have the opportunity to become more embedded in the community of legal actors and build social capital through these informal relationships. Though Eisenstein, Flemming, and Nardulli specifically study county criminal courts in their study, their observations of the unique cultures of court communities can extend to the forum of law more broadly. They note that membership in such a community allows for trust to be established and “credit” to be built.
In the
As society becomes more modern, there is “an increased insistence on the possession of professional legal credentials by those adjudicating disputes about the law”5. This shift of society towards more qualified legal personnel’s is in response to the growing complexity of the Canadian legal system. The average person does not know enough about the workings of the legal process to accurately represent themselves in legal conflict situations. The addition of qualified lawyers in court proceedings allows both parties of a conflict an equal platform in which to argue their case. If Nils Christie’s idea of a society in which lawyers become obsolete, the party in a conflict who has more knowledge of the legal system would win the dispute, regardless of their guilt or
In Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead Marc Galanter argues there are two types of parities that you can find inside a court room. There are the “one-shotters” and the “repeat players”. One shotters are people who are only occasionally in direct contact with the judicial system. They may be parents fighting over custody, neighbors trying to come to an agreement on a grievance, or family member fighting over inheritance. One shotters are typically individuals with limited resources and knowledge of the legal system. Gallants argues that for one-shotters their “claims are either too large relative to his seize or too small, realize to cost of remedies” (5).
Many of the most important aspects of and decisions about social organization hinge on an individual or society’s conception of justice. Because this conception of justice has tremendous influence over the way societies are structured, political theorists interested in understanding and improving society place great importance on understanding and articulating the nature of justice. While most of the political theorists we have read in class have proposed definitions of justice, none of them sufficiently incorporate the many dimensions of justice while remaining specific enough to allow for relatively consistent distinctions between the just and unjust. To balance these competing demands, I propose that justice is the impartial ordering of
In “The Adversary Judge” Frankel explains how realities of the trial create a “role conflict” between the ideally constructed impartial judge and the realistic adversary judge (Frankel, 1976). Throughout their day people play many roles, these roles are based on the expectations of the people around them and the personality of the person (Frankel, 1976). In particular, judges are expected to play the role of neutrality, intelligence, and patience. Their role is thought to be similar of an “umpire” (Frankel, 1976). It is necessary for them to be objective in order for a just and fair trial to take place. Yet, this ideal role does not occur under the pressure of realities. One reality that pushes away the idea of an “umpire” judge is the heated emotions that occur throughout the trial process. Frankel states” the courtroom explodes as people spring up at several tables shouting objections, usually loudly because they are in some haste and heat to cut off forbidden answers” (Frankel, 1976, p. 472). The attorney’s main goals throughout the trail is to ensure a win for their client leading to competitiveness between both parties. Attorneys do not want to hear they are wrong and always need to be one step ahead of their competitors. This causes the commotion and tense emotions that is usually seen in courts.
Three models portraying our criminal justice system are the Wedding Cake Model, Criminalization Model, and the President’s Commission Model. The Wedding Cake Model “emphasizes that the system handles different kinds of cases differently; it depicts four layers or tiers of cases”. While the Wedding Model offers an accurate typology of cases processed through the system, its primary focus is on the decisions of prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. There is a glimpse the role of power and status in such decisions, but the factors of race, class, and gender are not explicit. But, this model does not address the lawmaking process and the social inequalities in the economic and political systems in which laws are forged. Now the second model, the Criminalization model explores the role of social class in the criminal justice system. It shows that the system is used to control certain groups of people by criminalizing their behaviors and targeting them for arrest and incarceration. The third model, the President’s Commission Model provides the most famous portrayal of the criminal justice system by summarizing the stages of the system. In comparison, the Wedding Cake Model and the Criminalization Model are similar because they both show the recognition of power and status in the criminal justice system. These two models are the opposite of the President’s Commission Model due to the fact that this model does not show the roles played by race, gender, and social class at the
Merit –compare and contrast the role of judges ,lawyers and lay people within the English courts.
265. 2014). This is because there are differing views on the relationships between wealth, inequality and disorder and on how people of different classes are judged. Certain groups within society have the power to define what is order and disorder, whilst the vast majority do not. Consequently, as Harvard and Clarke state ‘There are numerous examples of distinctions made between similar behaviours all judged differently depending on social identities’ (Harvard C & Clarke Pg. 265. 2014). Therefore, according to Patrick Allen of Hodge, Jones & Allen Solicitors, (Bowcott,O. 2015) “It comes as no surprise that those in the lowest income bracket have the least trust in a legal system that appears unfair, confusing and inaccessible’, in contrast to the wealthy who have no difficulties in paying for such access. Thus, indicating that the poor and middle classes have little or no chance of having ‘equality before the law’. Thus, Inequalities in law persist, only changing slowly over time. However, laws are never static, always changing but not always for the betterment of
Courts play a vital role in the Criminal Justice System in America, however; understanding how the courts work and function is essential. Even the general public should have a basic knowledge regarding the similarities and differences of the jurisdiction and structure of our dual court system – federal and state. In addition, there are ethical and diversity issues that can be experienced by each of the courts that could possibly impact the courts’ functioning.
Bogira paints a portrait of some of the more personal and nuanced day-to-day activities that go into courtroom behavior and decision making. Describe some of the often overlooked aspects of day-to-day court operations (i.e., judges background, public pressures, defense attorney and prosecutorial ambitions, etc.) and how they may affect court outcomes for defendants. Bogira paints a portrait of the real side of the law and after reading Courtroom 302 I’m applauded at the things I’ve read. Bogira’s showed a different side to prosecutors, detectives, and judges detailing the little to no interest they had in righting the wrongs caused by the court.
Through my observations of all three courts, it was plain that all players present in the courtroom were there to administer justice and maintain the equity of our society. By providing a competent and impartial governing body to conduct the trial, but also by doing so: in a timely and thorough manner, while protecting the accused’s inherent rights, and by educating those partaking in the process as well as making educated decisions themselves.
From enforcing traffic tickets to ruling on the legality of legislation passed by the Senate and Assembly, California’s court system plays an integral role in society. However, despite the massive influence the courts hold over the lives of all Californians, most know little to nothing about the way the court system operates. As an intern at the Superior Court of San Francisco, I came to realize how, even after taking multiple political science courses on laws and the judicial system, I only accumulated a shallow pool of knowledge on the inner workings of the court system. Talking with judges and attorneys and sitting in on court meetings did help me understand the judicial system in much more depth, but also brought up many additional issues I am interested in pursuing further.
Fraser deconstructs the symbolic imagery of a scale of justice of balance for impartiality and the map for framing. This illustrates the difficulties disadvantage people have with impartiality in gaining a fair assessment of their claims and the historical problems of hegemonic framing when social
In today 's society we have court cases that occur every day. Cates ' review, she described the court system today with two different kinds of people, these two parties are one-shotters as well as repeat players. She tells the reader the differences of the two and provides examples of each party. The one-shotters tend to be individuals with less financial support where as the repeat players are institutions that tend to be of a wealthy social status. With the information she provides in the review, she aids Marc Galenter 's famous theory with the advantages of the repeat players over the one-shotters. With some of the differences she numbered off, she used the financial stability as one of them. The ability to afford the lawyers used with the companies money tends to be much with ease rather than using the income of that single individual. With the one-shotters, they only appear in court every once in a while which leads to a weak relationship with their lawyer. The repeat players on the other hand, appear in court much more frequently and have a well established relationship with their lawyer since they are in the court room on a repetitive basis. Cates ' review favors the side of repeat players with more strong points with matters of experience in the court room, they obtain more intelligence in the court room that tends to be the advantage of anyone who appears in a court case. The ranking in the socioeconomic status has a toll on the availability of the lawyers, like
An exploration into whose interest is served by the law and the reality of a class bias.
Over the decades, the concept of justice has been continually evolving. This is occurring based upon different moral or legal interpretations. Evidence of this can be seen with observations from Burke (2011) who said, "Few things are of more importance to a society than its concept of justice. This is because it is justice that provides criterion for the legitimate use of force. In the name of justice people are detained, arrested, handcuffed, put on trial and punished. This concept is used to provide every society with some kind of social order. Over the last 200 years, a revolution has taken place with these principles. Our idea of it is what we employ, when dealing with ordinary individuals in daily life including: making agreements, paying bills, resolving disputes and putting criminals in jail. This is a concept that is as old as recorded history and it is familiar to people everywhere. What makes it so unique is that these ideas are constantly changing which focuses on society as a whole and how people are interacting with each other. " (Burke)