How Courts Know

Abstract

To grasp criminal courts as truth spots, one needs to go beyond their symbolic applications to consider their interactional and epistemic implications. In this study, the authors compare the English Crown Court, German District Court, and U.S. State Court as “places on display” and as “places denied.” These perspectives comment on the courts in light of their different interaction orders and their different positions in knowledge processes. For the latter, the authors utilize Knorr's taxonomy of laboratory—experiment relations. The article arrives at one basic distinction: the procedural replacement of trial hearings by deal-oriented plea bargaining in the U.S. context. In contrast, the English and the German courts involve a preference for trial hearings and for fully developed cases, which, however, does not forbid but encourage forms of trial-oriented plea bargain.

Courtroom Ethnography in the Context of Terrorism: A Multi-Level Approach

“…The function of courts is to directly or indirectly moralize guilt for the public, that is, the people in whose name the verdict is pronounced (cf. Scheffer et al, 2009). Moralization means the evaluation of a behavior, which is the basis for establishing failure (cf.…”

“…Therefore, courts have a high symbolic status as “paradigmatic places” and in this respect can be compared to theaters or cathedrals: they are overflowing with ideas, rituals, and artefacts (cf. Scheffer et al, 2009, p. 184). Law and statute represent a “special case of behavioral expectations” (Nöth, 1993, p. 14, p. 14) 3 ; here, more clearly and formally than in other social subareas, the emergence, transmission, and application of values and norms in social action become apparent.…”

“…Courts, as a result, are more than places of truth-finding, they also have the function of moralizing guilt directly or indirectly for their audience (cf. Scheffer et al, 2009). Courtroom settings, likewise, are not about the formalist “application of neutral law” (cf.…”

Geographie und Recht

“…Zudem kam es vereinzelt zu vergleichenden Untersuchungen unterschiedlicher Gerichtsformate und Rechtssysteme, die wichtige Impulse lieferten (vgl. Hannken-Illjes et al, 2006;Scheffer et al, 2008). Andere Forscher:innen untersuchten in den vergangenen Jahren die Rolle von Emotionen oder Affekten in der Performance von Anwält*innen und anderen Schlüsselakteur:innen für den Verlauf und Ausgang von Verfahren (vgl.…”

Culture all around? Contextualising anthropological expertise in European courtroom settings

“…Ethnomethodologists in particular have provided detailed insights into professional legal practice and the production of legal knowledge in courtroom interactions in Western legal settingsinitially based on observations in the courtroom and later in the form of participant observation in the lifeworlds of involved professional actors (e.g. Lynch, 1997;Scheffer et al, 2009;Scheffer, 2010). We now also possess a large body of ethnographic studies of disputing in post-colonial settings characterised by legal pluralism.…”