Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T22:52:46.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Said Anything About Justice? Bail Court and the Culture of Adjournment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2015

Nicole Marie Myers
Nicole Marie Myers*
Affiliation:
School of Criminology Simon Fraser [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The criminal court is supposed to be a place of adversarial justice; however, these formal legal values do not appear to translate into practice. The courtroom workgroup, though made up of formal adversaries with widely divergent roles and objectives, is a community of workers whose shared interests include getting through the day as quickly and efficiently as possible. Using data from 142 days of bail court observation in Ontario the author argues that a “culture of adjournment” has taken over the bail process. Rather than the court being run by an efficient adversarial group of people processing criminal cases through the system, the courtroom has developed a culture that emphasizes the importance of expeditiously disposing of the daily docket over distributing justice.

Résumé

Le tribunal pénal est censé être un lieu judiciaire de nature accusatoire. Toutefois, ces valeurs juridiques formelles ne semblent pas se traduire dans la pratique. Le groupe de travail d’une salle d'audience, bien que composé d'adversaires formels ayant des rôles et des objectifs divergents, représente une communauté de travailleurs dont les intérêts communs incluent passer à travers la journée aussi rapidement et efficacement que possible. Se fondant sur les données de 142 jours d’audiences sur le cautionnement en Ontario, l'auteure soutient qu’une « culture de l'ajournement » domine le processus de libération sous caution. Plutôt que d’avoir un tribunal dirigé par un groupe efficace de personnes opposées procédant au traitement des affaires pénales, la salle d'audience fonctionne sur la base d’une culture qui met l'accent non sur l’exercice de la justice mais sur l'importance de disposer rapidement du plumitif journalier.

Keywords

Court culturejusticeefficiencyadjournmentsbail courtculture de courjusticeefficacitéajournementlibération sous caution
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , April 2015 , pp. 127 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Abraham, Blumberg. 1967a. Criminal Justice. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.Google Scholar
Abraham, Blumberg. 1967b. “The Practice of Law as Confidence Game, Organizational Cooptation of a Profession.” Law and Society Review 1 (2): 15–40.Google Scholar
Ronit, Dinovitzer, and Leon, Jeffrey S.. 2001. “When Long Becomes Too Long: Legal Culture and Litigators' Views on Long Civil Trials.” Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 19:106–60.Google Scholar
James, Eisenstein, and Jacob, Herbert. 1977. Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts. Boston: Little & Brown.Google Scholar
Malcolm, Feeley. 1973. “Two Models of the Criminal Justice System: An Organizational Perspective. Law and Society Review 7 (3): 407–25.Google Scholar
Malcolm, Feeley. 1983. Court Reform on Trial: Why Simple Solutions Fail. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Marc G, Gertz. 1980. “The Impact of Prosecutor/Public Defender Interaction on Sentencing: An Exploratory Typology.” Criminal Justice Review 5 (1): 43–54.Google Scholar
John, Harris, and Jesilow, Paul. 2000. “It's Not the Old Ball Game: Three Strikes and the Courtroom Workgroup.” Justice Quarterly 17:185–203.Google Scholar
Herbert, Jacob. 1983. “Courts as Organizations”. In Empirical Theories about Courts, edited by Boyum, Keith O. and Mather, Lynn M., 189–215. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Fiona, Leverick, and Duff, Peter. 2002. “Court Culture and Adjournments in Criminal Cases: A Tale of Four Courts.” Criminal Law Review: 39–52.Google Scholar
Kathy, Mack, and Anleu, Sharyn Roach. 2007. “‘Getting Through the List’: Judgecraft and Legitimacy in the Lower Courts.” Social & Legal Studies 16 (3): 341–61.Google Scholar
Gary, Trotter. 2010. The Law of Bail in Canada. 3rd ed. Toronto: Carswell.Google Scholar
Jeffery, Ulmer, and Kramer, John. 1998. “The Use and Transformation of Formal Decision-Making Criteria: Sentencing Guidelines, Organizational Contexts, and Case Processing Strategies.” Social Problems 45 (2): 248.Google Scholar
Richard, Young. 2013. “Exploring the Boundaries of the Criminal Courtroom Workgroup.” Common Law World Review 42: 203–39.Google Scholar
Richard, Young. 2012. “Managing the List in the Lower Criminal Courts: Judgecraft or Crafty Judges?” Common Law World Review 41: 29–58.Google Scholar
Criminal Code, RSC, 1985, c. C-46.Google Scholar
Criminal Code, RSC, 1985, c. C-46.Google Scholar