How Courtroom Layouts Are Biased (feat Legal Eagle)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- Click brilliant.org/... to get 20% off your annual premium subscription and a 30-day free trial!
Discover how courtroom design impacts the course of justice with me and Legal Eagle. Delve into the historical development of courtrooms, from their utilitarian beginnings in the colonial era to the neoclassical architectural styles of the 18th and 19th centuries, reflecting the ideals of the new nation. Explore the primary courtroom layouts used today in the US: the Center Bench, the Corner Bench, and the intriguing Jeffersonian Revival, each with its unique implications for power dynamics and trial proceedings. Uncover the crucial role of furniture, lighting, and acoustics in creating a conducive environment while preserving security and functionality. Join the conversation on the psychological impact of design choices, and how they can influence the perception of the accused and ultimately shape the outcome of trials. Subscribe to the channel for more engaging discussions on the intersection of design and society!
_CREDITS_
Video co-produced and edited by Evan Montgomery.
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images, Storyblocks, and Shutterstock.
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
_Membership_
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @stewarthicks
_About the Channel_
Architecture with Stewart is a TH-cam journey exploring architecture’s deep and enduring stories in all their bewildering glory. Weekly videos and occasional live events breakdown a wide range of topics related to the built environment in order to increase their general understanding and advocate their importance in shaping the world we inhabit.
_About Me_
Stewart Hicks is an architectural design educator that leads studios and lecture courses as an Associate Professor in the School of Architecture at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He also serves as an Associate Dean in the College of Architecture, Design, and the Arts and is the co-founder of the practice Design With Company. His work has earned awards such as the Architecture Record Design Vanguard Award or the Young Architect’s Forum Award and has been featured in exhibitions such as the Chicago Architecture Biennial and Design Miami, as well as at the V&A Museum and Tate Modern in London. His writings can be found in the co-authored book Misguided Tactics for Propriety Calibration, published with the Graham Foundation, as well as essays in MONU magazine, the AIA Journal Manifest, Log, bracket, and the guest-edited issue of MAS Context on the topic of character architecture.
_Contact_
FOLLOW me on instagram: @stewart_hicks & @designwithco
Design With Company: designwith.co
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Architecture: arch.uic.edu/
#architecture #urbandesign
![วันเกิดเธอ (TO YOU) - PHUWIN [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_ROx1Bj3T0Y/mqdefault.jpg)
Geez, this LegalEagle guy is everywhere these days... Even the best architecture channel on TH-cam!
Is there no domain off limits to this guy?
Yeah, but this guy is the Leagle Eagle. It even says so at 2:26
Haha, oops!!
It's almost as if your presence is afroturfed. As a laymen I have noticed many objective errors in your videos.
first pilosophy tube, now here… you’re going places
In the last 10 or 15 years, I've had go to court twice, both for traffic tickets, and both in new(ish) municipal court buildings where it was evident that budget trumped absolutely every other consideration. Dim, soul-killing fluorescent troffer lights in a dropped ceiling. Cheap, low pile carpet with black rubber base at the wall. Textured drywall. Millwork that qualified as about a 1/2 step above a cubicle. Woodwork that was obviously little more than off-the-shelf 1x pine from Team Orange slathered with cheap urethane stain. If they'd had some plastic plants and a couple of tables with outdated magazines, you would have had a hard time distinguishing the space from a large doctor's office waiting room or any other low-rent public-facing commercial space.
Though it must be said that the spaces were well-designed for the purpose of channeling the stream of defendants from gallery to judge to prosecutor back to judge to clerk to cashier. (ATM conveniently located right outside the courtroom on your way to the cashier's window.)
Pretty tough to summon up any sense of reverence or respect for the judicial process when the built environment conspires with procedure to turn justice into a crass commercial transaction.
Yeah, I don’t know if it’s different in other states like back east or something, but none of the courthouses here have any gravitas. I’ve not seen any of this wood paneling or columns as seen in the video. Usually just cheap and bureaucratic like a DMV or something
A DMV court/judge isn't a real court/judge, they are administrative judge. They don't even need graduate degree and some not even bachelors'. All you have to be is good at recalling the agency's operational guidelines and can write a lot you can be an administrative judge
Did they reduce every single minor charge to a parking ticket, that way no one gets points and they can keep giving them tickets? Because that's what they did in Buffalo, and yeah, those courtrooms were functionally factory room floors; kept the overhead as low as possible.
@@Peizxcv Not even the US supreme court requires graduate degrees, or even high school diplomas. Very few states even require that judges be lawyers. Mostly they just need to be elected or appointed.
@@brettmajeske3525 Would explain why the court is so messed up
As an acoustical consultant who has worked on multiple courthouses mentioning crosstalk (hvac being a weak point for sound isolation) is a good touch even if you didn't call it by its name haha
It’s not just sidebars that are an issue with the Jeffersonian arrangement. In modern times, a camera on the judge might expose the identities of the jurors to television viewers. In some cases, the juries identities might need to be protected. An ideal architecture would both allow the jurors to be in front of the judge, and also allow the jury box to be moved to the side for some cases.
There is no guarantee of anonymity being a juror. If there is reason to protect the identities of jurors, reports and cameras will not be allowed at all. During selection, your full legal name is presented to the court (plus a lot of other things) - i.e. everyone in the room... lawyers, defendants, other jurors and prospective jurors, even members of the public. Court rooms _are_ public spaces, unless otherwise directed by the judge.
@jfbeam lol lmao
Wow, this is actually a clever collaboration. The choice to combine the disciplines of architecture and law made for an interesting mixture I didn't expect. Good job, Stewart.
My initial reaction to Devon: I blocked Legal Eagle a long time ago due to his political vitriol. I'd rather not see him anywhere on TH-cam because he insists on representing himself as part of the edutainment genre while using the audience to draw attention to his political agenda. Regardless of when I agreed with him or disagreed, I found it extremely improper to use an education based channel on the platform to spread a political message. He should have made a second channel and kept the two topics separate.
I liked his content before he decided to transition into a political talking head disguised as an educator. This video was reminiscent (sp?) of the time before he became political. I've seen him do other collabs recently and enjoyed them. Maybe he is on a path to redemption and decided to separate his politics from his edutainment content.
This collab was great. It was a risk and came out well. Devon has a lot of entertainment and education to contribute to the platform when done properly.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 what do you meant by political vitriol? as a non-american outsider, the only reason why the channel is so overtly political is cos Trump is just a one big punch bag right now.
He influenced the crowd on Jan 6, cooked up schemes after the 2020 election to say he won (he didn't), tried hard to "leak" classified info...
I can't say what's more interesting to the YT algo. right now... as someone say, "did crime, do the time". Since he liked the limelight, the limelight found him...
This video is a great conversation starter. I was however hoping it would contain more alternative settings. I understand that technology has to be facilitated but I wish that the topic of plaintiff's sense of safety could also have been addressed. I had to testify in criminal court and I am currently in the midst of a legal battle at the housing tribunal, when dealing with bullies the traditional set up can make "the victim" feel extra vulnerable.
Having served on juries multiple times I think some of the details need to be rethought by walking through multiple perspectives.
Jury boxes are uncomfortable and provide no discreet opportunity for bathroom breaks, for example, skewing jury pools to the younger, more mobile and more able.
I was looking for different countries' court layouts for comparison.
Just a quick note. I work for HMCTS (which runs the courts of England and Wales). We still use docks with protective glass/plastic. The ECtHR ruling did not ban the use of the dock in UK courts, but rather urged the UK to reconsider its use and to apply it only when necessary. However, since then, there has been little change in the UK’s policy or practice regarding the dock. According to a report by JUSTICE, a law reform organisation, most defendants in UK courts are still routinely placed in secure docks, regardless of their personal characteristics or the nature of their offence. This happens in both Magistrates and Crown courts.
Not the first European human rights ruling the UK has ignored unfortunately.
Designing a court house is the only project I remember well from my architecture school days. I had gone full "form follows function" where the design was more or less circular with center and up being the judiciary, center and down being the police/cells/etc, and finally the outside being the public. With each having their completely separate system of corridors feeding into the courtrooms. Quite clever I thought. But alas, it wasn't rewarded that way.
a bit like in harry potter?
So that turned out to be incredibly interesting. Thank you for making this video.
On a related note while watching I thought about the all the symbols. At first I thought them frivolous but as I reflected on them, and was presented with them in the video, I started considering them integral to the courtroom itself. Symbols hold power. The power to remind us of our values I beleive is the most important. The scales of justice in a courtroom reminds everyone in the room, especially the judge and the jury, that justice requires impartiality. Having the symbol front and centre, makes it hard to ignore and hopefully people take that reminder to heart.
it's the "if ur courtroom looks like this, you're getting life w/o parole" meme 😂
I've actually worked on a few courthouses in my career as an electrical engineer. And just looking at the blueprints, you realize how much thought and consideration goes into keep different parties separate based upon their role and other factors. Most modern courthouses will even have a completely separate secure elevator for moving defendants. And most people who've never served on a jury don't realize that a properly designed jury suit will include a break area for coffee, water, snacks, etc that is separate from the staff break room.
I work for a court system at the state level. Something to also consider with court design is the type of court it is. If it's criminal court, they'll need officer access and holding cells. If it's Family court, they won't need a jury box. If it's civil court you'll likely need a lot more space due to the much larger case volume.
Technology is also the current focus of many court systems and the primary challenge is, what else, money. The expense of retrofitting these grand and specially furnished rooms with proper A/V equipment is not small. And in an era of hightened information security another major limiting factor is network access. Sharing documentation is much harder when you need to maintain a strict firewall between staff and attorney/public access.
And it all needs to happen without interrupting proceedings. You can't stop processing cases for renovation.
That's why my county built a new 10 story facility. (not "courthouse", "justice center".) And it holds a lot more than just courtrooms. I've been in the old courthouse; it looks like it's a century old, because it is. It would be almost impossible to refit the old building with all the modern technologies. The Justice Center is a massive, beautiful place. While the restricted areas (judge, jury, and security) are a bit like a submarine, the public spaces are huge open areas. (the elevators were down one morning, so several of us were escorted through the "staff" areas to a working elevator.)
Never thought about the cultural differences between courtrooms. Surpricingly interesting!
In Danish courts procecusion and defence face each other. The judge faces the witness. The audience is behind the witness. We don't have a jury as such, but lay judges and they sit on the judge's sides.
And now I'm off to look at courtroom layouts around the world 😊
Why does that sound just like the courtrooms in the Ace Attorney franchise, which is based off of Japanese legal systems?
@@finnanima2413 I don't know.
@ane-louisestampe7939 is Danish courtroom based on another countries?
@@longiusaescius2537 Can't say, but I'm quite sure we've done it like that for almost 800 years.
Jyske Lov, the first Danish law is from 1241, but there might very well have been some Icelandic inspiration behind it.
@@ane-louisestampe7939 apparently Japan has a similar layout
What a great crossover! I hadn’t considered how much architecture impacts courtrooms.
My Uncle was a millwright in the mid 80’s and built the judge’s benches, jury box, and witness stand for the Chicago Mob Trials. That was one of the first instances where bulletproofing with hardboard was used. Behind the judge’s nameplate was a gun slot held up by magnets. Under his bench was an electric locking port for a sawed-off shotgun and 10 rounds of 12 gauge ammunition. Neat little setup.
While you’re analyzing courtroom layouts, how do you think the Jeffersonian Revival style of courtroom would affect the people who are very anxious in front of an audience, or those who have subconsciously come to associate face-to-face viewing with confrontation?
The lawyers would not have much problem with this, because they would address the jury anyway, but this may have a detrimental effect on some defendants.
While I love the Jeffersonian Revival layout for its ability to centralize sightlines and participants it does have some issues. I certainly think there would be an increased risk of juror intimidation from hostile/dangerous defendants. In addition to the issue this video raised with sidebar conversations, there is also the challenge of protecting juror identities when news cameras are allowed in courtrooms, something that is allowed by law in some states and is often referred to as "Sunshine Laws". This is normally handled through court instruction disallowing the capturing of the jurors by video but would be unavoidable if the jurors were placed directly in front of the judge.
My thoughts exactly. I would hate this configuration if I were anyone involved in any case here.
Masks help. 😷 covid was a blessing to socially anxious. Plus I could laugh more easily without looking crazy.
@@brog2851It's such a bad design. Jurors are addressed by they judge and the witness, you can't be in front of the judge like that
The fifth amendment exits, a defendant is not obligated to address the judge or jury. Let your lawyer talk in your stead.
Also, you have to convince the jury. If you are not able to properly address them and come across in the best light possible you probably shouldn't anyway.
A few weeks ago I was able to sit in on a jury selection/hearing at the Old Bailey in London. What fascinated me was what we in the public gallery could and couldn't see. The Judge and Barristers were visible, as was the defendant. The jury was visible once they were seated, but not when they were still being selected. The screens for digital evidence were visible to everyone BUT the public gallery, which I found odd, but probably just an issue of pragmatism. Something I found rather decent about the whole affair was that you couldn't see the family of the victim, as they were seated below the public gallery.
The court I was in a few weeks ago has two displays. The big screen with a projector the whole room can see, and TV on a cart they wheel out just for the jury. They only used the cart for the really gross things, and the judge came down from the bench to see it with the jury.
@11:16 The courtrooms I've been to have been suffocating and claustrophobic, unfortunately. Had a panic attack in one and had to ask to escort myself out. The spaces themselves are large and double height, and the woodwork is all lovely, but the small windows (or even lack of), people packed into benches, not to mention tension in the air with all the authoritative figures and those directly involved in the hearing, doesn't make the best environment to be in during the long dragging hours of the jury selection process. Loved the neoclassical exterior and atrium, though!
Really liking the fact that a photo showed several times was of the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town, South Africa! In the criminal courts, cell blocks are usually in the basement with stairs going up into the dock. But the dock isn't fully walled in, just half walls.
The Jeffersonian layout looks a lot more like the one used in Ace Attorney.
Not without reason, either. Courtrooms like that are commonplace in countries with a civil-law model of justice: prosecution and defense facing each other with the judge on one side and the witness on the other -- and notably, no jury. Adapting the layout to the common-law/jury-of-peers model is a bit like trying to fit a five-sided object into a four-sided hole, as evidenced by the complications brought up in this video.
@@d.b.4671 Setups where the lawyer's tables aren't facing the bench feel so odd to me. I feel like you'd have toe spent a lot of time with your head turned to see the "action".
In some countries, the judges or lay judges (yes, they have more judges depending on the crime) sit in the back, with the prosecutor and defendant tables facing each other, and with the accused in the middle.
@@atraxisdarkstar ideally, with a little more space, you could have the default postion of the lawyer benches be at say a 45 deg angle with witness and judge/jury instead of sideways
on the issue of sidebar for jeffersonian: technology either turn sidebar into a SMS like event or mics at the tables with directional speakers such that based upon the direction of the direction speakers the jury, audience, and witness dont hear the output of the directional speakers. got one for the judge, clerk, and each lawyer table.
00:30 - Not all docks: 1) the ECtHR doesn't have jurisdiction beyond Europe and 2) even in Europe not all docks are banned - the vast majority of criminal courts in France and the UK still have a small box/pen (often surrounded by something, usually glass) in which defendants sit/stand.
I know lawyers who have pointed out that "speaking into a dock microphone" should be a whole course with an official certificate at the end of it - that's how complicated talking and hearing can be in one.
7:45 - France normally uses a mix of the centre and "Jeffersonian" styles - the main witness box (the defendant, if detained awaiting trial never leaves the box so never uses it) is right in the centre between or in front of counsel tables (sometimes counsel tables are side by side facing the judge, sometimes at right angles), the defendants' box and jury areas are usually to the sides where applicable, the prosecutor is often on the raised judges' platform to one side, the clerk on the opposite side of the same.
9:37 - Over here in France apart from judges, prosecutors and clerks, most people get a very basic metal or wooden bench or, if you're lucky, independent seat, with at most a thin layer of padding.
Re. the Jeffersonian, witnesses probably feel safer near the judge than they would isolated in the middle of everyone. As a neuropsychologist, I also can't ignore that people are less likely to say private things (e.g., "I was raped") away from the "safety" of corners and shadows.
Agreed. Sitting next to the judge, while not actually safer, would definitely FEEL safer and could impact testimony.
Maybe have the jury spaced out: 2 on each other four corners (8), 1 by each lawyer, and 2 in the back with the audience.
Leaving an entire skyscraper empty because the windows look into other windows? Have they never heard of non-clear glass? Stained glass, opaque glass, etched glass, there are so many possibilities! You don't even have to take the old glass out--just paint over the lower half with faux stained glass paints, or even regular house paint.
Or leave the few affected floors/rooms empty or wall them over if it's such a problem.
It’s also block prime real estate in the fastest growing neighborhood in the city.
Yeah what a waste of money.
And an empty building could be convenient for a potential sniper.
Yes to the previous reply-it’s not just SEEING into the courtrooms next door. It’s firing into them. Before I was a lawyer, I got to tour a modern virology lab, and one feature I remember was offset windows in the hallway outside of biohazard level 4 spaces. All I could see out those windows was an open field, and some old houses, but it was obvious where you could have put snipers
For the Jeffersonian style, I wonder if the addition of a sidebar area would be viable. Basically, an area in the corner with slightly higher walls to reduce noise travel. It would mean that the judge and lawyers would have to walk off to the side to talk, but might work.
My ADHD was thinking that or we just lower a giant glass box down from the ceiling over the jury. We have evidence by the fact we stopped using them to hold defendants that it obstructs noise. XD
@@Xershade Definitely a more fun solution :) but more complexity as well
Or maybe have the jury box be retractable. When sidebar is wanted, the judge presses the button and the jury box retracts below the floor and closes off. The floor below is the jury deliberation room with snacks and video games.
@@Xershadeor over the judge area. He gets paid the big bucks so he and the lawyers can be claustrophobic.
It's a bad design for trial, way too distracting
On a tangential note, it occurs to me that the Greeks and Rome painted their statues. What we think of as the white marble classical aesthetic did not really exist in history. But then a bunch of renaissance nerds thought it was, and so they decided to adopt it as their neoclassical aesthetic, which they used to build palaces and other government buildings... like courtrooms.
That bleached white marble may not belong to Rome, but it does belong to our culture, which is honestly just wild in my mind as a case where simulacrum becomes reality in a completely different context, much like how that paper town became a real town when somebody consulted a map and decided to settle there.
Worked in a city hall that is a converted modern courthouse. I worked in cubicles that used the open space that was built to be used as an extra court room. We also had all the rooms set to serve two courtrooms because the main courtroom was converted into a council chamber. The windows for the room were above the adjacent hallway and we had 4 different ways in and out. one leading to several large offices (judges chambers) with smaller offices with a break room, another leading to a waiting room for the jury (turned into a copy room), a main public entry (with newly installed glass door and reception desk), and one leading down to a loading dock and “holding cells” we used for storage. The amount of bathrooms to service the previous court complex was crazy! For the two converted court rooms there were: one medium sized set of restrooms, one small set of restrooms (gendered but exterior door locked only), and 4 unisex staff restrooms (but seemed set up to be upgraded to have stalls inside) restrooms. A bit of a crazy set up but it was a cool office and to see a fairly new courthouse being used for another purpose was interesting
Philosophy tube *and* Stewart Hicks in one week!? Mr Legal Eagle is getting around!! ❤❤
Courtroom design is a nightmare. I work as an architect,and the conflicts between ADA, ABA, and Homeland Security Requirements for criminal transfer, marshals , evidence lockers etc. can create a snarl that is nearly unsolvable.
I really liked the mock up of furniture using foam board. GREAT IDEA! Old courtrooms and new technology (eg raised floors, elaborate video and security systems) do not mix well. Getting Star Trek video screens in neo classical design is hard.
Lawyers can be very inflexible and old court rooms are not wide enough to accommodate large oversize attorney tables and ramps. Your video does a good job of explaining things. Wish GSA would watch your work and change its demands.
This seems like a great use case for AI: to balance the many needs
I've tried my hand at courtroom design as an amateur. It's not easy.
Yes! I’ve noticed this practicing in courtrooms during and after the pandemic (now that virtual court has been tried, there’s no going back). The screens and where to put them is just one challenge. If you notice, in all of this architecture, only the judicial bench affords a view of everyone else-but where do you place the camera, when the remote attendees have to be able to also see the judge?
This was interesting, but it is not the video advertised in the thumbnail. You didn't explain how courtrooms are broken, you did the opposite, explaining how precisely and strategically designed they are. I may just be a simple country lawyer, but this was a bait and switch.
As a criminal lawyer I would love a courtroom with a dock. The worst part of any trial is trying to concentrate on testimony while the defendant tugging on your elbow with stupid comments
The dock still exists. It's standard in UK magistrates' courts (which handle all arraignments, bail, warrants, fine only [US: "infraction"], and "summary" [US: "misdemeanor"] crimes).
In my country the layout is most similar to the ,,Jeffersonian” one from the US.
Also the witness stand is traditionally called ,,barierka”, which means a barrier or a fence.
That’s because in the old days judge table was separated from rest of the room by a fence (for security) and people testifying would approach this fence.
I’m a courtroom lawyer in Vancouver, Canada. Our old courthouse was turned into an art gallery, but some of the old rooms were kept intact for film shoots (see eg Lucifer s2e10). Windows! Acoustics! My heart breaks. The new courtrooms mostly have low ceilings with acoustic tile, and carpet (red, square, tiled so the high traffic or any that get bloodstained I guess can be easily replaced), and this is all great for the audio recording equipment. But I’m partly deaf (and so are a lot of other lawyers and judges), and I have to turn up my hearing aid about 25% just to function in the courtroom because the sound design was so deliberately made for audio recording.
@dl2725 no induction loop?
I really appreciate both of these channels, and I never would have foresaw you partnering before this, now obvious, connection between architecture and the law. However, I need to add that the majority of people in the United States never see a courtroom before they are sent to jail and/or prison. Most of both law and order is conducted by assistant district attorney's who appear to be actively dis-incentivized to use courts and jury's.
Trials are very expensive, and sometimes determine the defendant not guilty. The incentive for the DA and those beneath in law enforcement is always to get a guilty plea and avoid the expense and risk of a trial. Sometimes this means resorting to underhanded methods. Turns out even innocent people are willing to confess after a twelve-hour session of intense questioning while handcuffed to a table.
@@vylbird8014plenty of innocent people take plea deals because they cannot afford bail and having to wait months to years in detention in a jail is an unnecessary burden to place on them. Plea deals aren’t justice, and that a DA is incentivized to encourage a defendant to waive their right to a trial seems inappropriate.
Would it be feasible to install an intercom system between the lawyer tables and the judge's bench for sidebars in a Jeffersonian style courtroom? It seems like a really good set-up otherwise and it would be a shame for a technical detail like that to undermine its use.
Maybe a better idea, some sort of intranet "app" where you can sent a chat text message.
Or some hybrid of text and intercom.
Another possibility in the Jeffersonian style might be to split the jury section in half and put a soundproof, bulletproof section. The lawyers could walk up the aisle between jurors to enter one door and the judge could step down from the bench through another door. This room would have to be behind the jury and built into the judge’s platform, probably off slightly to one side, so as to not interfere with sight lines.
It would be better to not use that design at all
Hmm
I'm finishing my master thesis in architeture and the theme is exactly this one - The Design Process in the Shaping of the Judicial Space. Althought Courthouses in Europe still have some of the elements you talked about, the new ones are becoming much more pleasing in regard of the visual and psicological impact imo. Stripped of decorations and functional focused (check David Chipperfields City of Justice). There are ones where the design process takes a turn or is negleted and we cant even identify the building as a courthouse. MECANOO and KAAN courthouses are very interesting. The question becomes "whats the image of the modern courthouse and his tendencies".
Oh, when you're done with it would it be fine to share it? It sounds like it would be very interesting to read.
Agreed, please share
Sounds interesting! good luck finishing and would love to read.
I can share it, after it becomes public yes. You will need to translate, because it written in Portuguese x).
@@miguelantonio7947 thats fine
The "Dock" is still used in Magistrate and Crown courts in the UK. Not sure were you got the claim they were abolished?
He mentioned a 2014 European Court of Human Rights “ruling” but I can’t find anything like that. I also can’t find a source for the quote. I have found articles and papers since then implying it’s still an open issue in Europe and the dock is still used in many countries. Really bizarre.
As a side note, it was funny reading about it and seeing the US constantly referenced as a positive example to Europe on a human rights/criminal justice issue, that’s once in a blue moon lol.
One more note, it’s convenient the mistake falsely portrays Russia as backwards compared to the rest of Europe on this issue. Just saying.
@@ModernEphemera It certainly cannot have been a "ruling" as the UK is a signatory to the ECHR and so docks would have ended here as well if there actually was a ruling. Also the dock he shows at 0:16 is at Burton Magistrates court, not Russia.
@@JK50with10 Agreed. And good catch.
@@ModernEphemera our Russian justice system is really probably not the world's most pleasant one. But you don't expect a legal system to consist out of angels with fluffy white wings after they have supressed a decade of mafia rule. They aren't very friendly, they take it seriously and follow instructions. Russia had been a full on authoritarian police state for a lot longer than it exists now as a democratic republic - and there are remnants of that. Sometimes, you can stumble upon absolutely draconic bureaucracy. More and more of those is getting computerized, but not all yet - Russia and it's government systems are huge.
Russian law also finds the international laws recomendatory. Basically - when ECHR or something issues something, it has to be translated to Russian, voted upon by the Russian parliament if it fits into Russia or not and possibly corrected in this process, and then made into a Russian law that would work in Russia. Because, well, Russia has a lot of cultural, geographical and legal specifics that have to be considered.
Russian law itself is roman, but quite locally specific (not in a bad way. Often it's just different, because it's Russia. Sometimes it's better.)
There's a way that our justice system is certainly progressive in. Feminism. 68% of Russian judges are women.
The case with the band is absolutely unnecessary here - they had intentionally made a provocation that pissed out many christians. If they didn't intend religious hatred - why wouldn't they choose any other place than Russia's central cathedral? Even if they didn't - art isn't an excuse for public hooliganism. It's just there for more views because it was widely attended by media.
This whole collab is on a 4d chess kind of level. Wonderful perspective. I love that the witness stand on center layout puts the judge so physically in between the witness and others. I imagine that subtle feeling of safety has helped put away some truly awful people.
In Montreal's Palais de Justice, there's two kinds of court rooms. Those for most things have a modified "Jeffersonian Revival", but without a jury box. In Canada, juries are far more restricted in their use. The rooms that have a jury box, have the judge in a corner at the left, and the jury box where the judge would otherwise be, as if to emphasize that they are the "judge" (at least of fact), only used for criminal trials where the most severe offence is indictable (that is to say, a felony) So it's a kind of hybrid.
Two of my favorite TH-cam presenters, together! Loved it!
The video was interesting and worth the watch, but the title seems like misleading clickbait. Did the thesis of the video end up on the cutting room floor?
Absolutely. The only mention was that of the "penalty box" in the very beginning.
i want people to realize that the "built environment" is always playing a major role in what you do, what you think about, and who you even are, your culture, etc.
yeah humans design and build things but these things in turn strongly influence/guide us. a certain environment will foster some things and tend to hinder or hide or other things, or even make them impossible.
This was interesting, but didn't seem to actually discuss how they layouts could cause bias, like it says in the title? Except for the very start I guess where we all saw a blatantly biased courtroom but that was due more to the isolation of the accused than the layout of the room.
IKR, we got clickbaited. This was more about the practicalities of designing courtrooms and how designs have changed with the times.
As a South African law student it was cool seeing our court set up represented, idk why. (9:49)
I caught it at 2:53. Was not expecting that!
@@Ryan-ho4hf oh crazy I missed that!
This was really great, I had not really considered this at length and it makes a lot of sense once one considers all the competing and coordinating goals and priorities that the space confronts in an effort to also convey impartiality
On the light issue, an (admittedly somewhat expensive and complex) solution would be large monitors setup with fresnel panels to de-focus the light. The monitors feed webcam footage.
A solution to the lack of natural light would be solartubes or the like in the roof. The light can even be sent to a fully interior room via the use of mirrors
I have more experience in courtrooms than I knew. Once in a real court room. (divorce) Twice in the construction process. Once I built the judges desk out of cheap prefab cabinets. The cabinetry was probably cheaper than the plate of bullet proof steel I hid under cheap oak paneling. The other was a high end fancy courthouse. Three times I've accompanied people getting DUI's. (I was amazed how incompetent everyone seemed. Not once was everyone prepared.) Three other times I have been before judges for government bureaucracies. These were held in hotel conference rooms where we just sat around a table.
Lol, don’t look behind the curtain!
6:02 I attended jury duty just before omicron hit, there was so much plexiglass positioned between the participants
and the witness box had a non-obvious box-shaped microphone sitting at desk level hence there was plenty of times testimony couldn't be understood clearly.
If I was the engineer, I would have hung a cardiod over the witness' head. The case ran for over double the time initially estimated.
Oh yes! There could be a whole other video on how covid affected the process. And a whole other video on sound design in the courtroom. I relate to your experience because I have a hearing impairment, and the courts went hard for the plexi, and I don’t know that it prevents any transmission, but it sure does block sound. Add to that the way partially deaf people depend on lip reading, and the masks, and… 💩.
I should add… during all this, I’d hear people ask for the wee little unobtrusive mic’s to be turned up. Those mic’s aren’t for amplification (at least where I practice); they’re just recording to tape.
@KOZMOuvBORG interesting
So, if TV is at all accurate (the courtrooms are, there's regular news footage of them)...
In Japan, the layout is a little different from American courtrooms. The bench usually has more than one judge and nowadays a panel of jurors (the Japanese word used is different from the word for "juror" because they're also allowed to ask questions-- not 100% sure what the timing on that is-- but their function is similar to American juries). To the left and right of the well are tables for the two opposing parties. In the center of the well is the witness stand, but when the head/chief judge addresses the defendant (e.g., reading of verdicts, sentencing), the defendant would stand in the witness stand. Decades ago, the defendant could have been in restraints like rope, but recent reforms appear to have restricted this practice only to those accused of especially violent crimes. Seeing a defendant tied up in the box in front of you might as well have been the same thing as the dock, it likely helped the prosecutors maintain a 99.9%+ conviction rate.
I don't know about getting tackled by the bailiff, but generally speaking there's no need for counsel to step into the well, they rarely move from where they're sitting.
If historical dramas are to be believed, the defendant being restrained in rope and brought right in front of the judge might be traced back to the Edo period, where defendants were compelled to kneel on a straw mat placed over a gravel lot.
> Seeing a defendant tied up in the box in front of you might as well have been the same thing as the dock, it likely helped the prosecutors maintain a 99.9%+ conviction rate.
I think it doesn't matter, the prosecutors are too selective in the case they bring... so in the first place there's almost total confirmation that the defendant is a "devil".
Interesting
When I lived in Charlottesville VA in the early 1990's I had jury duty in the Albemarle Co. Courthouse which was built during the 1790s and it was set in the Jeffersonian style (you could see Monticello from the courthouse's front porch) . The jury sat on an elevated dais in front of the judge which was very interesting. We the jury could see everything directly, eye to eye. It was very interesting to have a clear view of everything going on in the whole room. When there was need for the lawyers to talk to the judge, the jury was ushered out of the courthouse to the jury room .
Two other observations that I find odd about justice: 1. Prosecutors offices are in close proximity to judge's offices (at least in Dallas, TX.). 2. Judges are elected by political affiliation. Those two aspects cloud justice, in my opinion.
This is absolutely fantastic collaboration that I wish would happen in other professions- and on yt for a sense of accountability
Two of my favorite channels getting together makes my day!!!
As someone who served as a juror in the UK, I don't like the Jeffersonain Revival version of being sat in front of the Judge. I found the separation of where everyone was made it easier to focus on who was the centre of attention at any given moment - There was a very defined sense of who was being addressed and by whom. Also being somewhat intimidated by the whole process, the fact I could see the judge easily and throughout was really helpful. Especially in his summary and when he was explaining the law in question and directing us on what our duties were and what it was our job to decide. I'm not sure I would have appreciated having to do a 180 in my chair.
Jeffersonian Revival is what most higher German courts look like. As for lower courts, those may have a similar layout or may not even look that much like courts at all. Keep in mind that there is no jury in Germany. Cases are usually either decided by a single judge only or by a single judge and two lay judges. At higher criminal courts, just three judges, or three judges and two lay judges. To become a lay judge, you can either apply to do that job, or in case not enough have applied, citizens can also be randomly put on a list. They must fulfill certain criteria (you must be between 25 and 70 years, healthy, speak German, live in Germany, etc.) to even get on the list. Then the list is publicly available for one week and everyone has the right to object any candidate on that list for any reason. Finally the list and all objections are given to a board (consisting of one judge, one administrative officer and seven confidential counsels) and they will make the final decision who gets the job (they vote for candidates, a 2/3 majority is required). If you get the job, you get the job for 5 years (4 years up to 2008), however, it is not the case that you work full time as a judge, on average you have 12 cases per year. Lay judges have limited power during trial, but they can request file inspection and they can request from the main judge to get permission to question witnesses (in Germany, not just the lawyers, also judges may question witnesses and usually start doing that before even the lawyers get their turns for criminal trials). Yet, when it comes to the final ruling, they have equal power, meaning they can not only decide about guilty or not, they can also decide how high the punishment shall be. That means in a 2 to 1 situation, they can actually overrule the judge completely as long as they both are on the same page. In a 2 to 3 situation, they still have a blocking minority, that means if both lay judges say not guilty, the other three judges cannot rule guilty but if guilty, they cannot block a certain punishment as here the other three judges can overrule them; that is, if they can agree on something. Otherwise the two lay judges can team up with a one judge to overrule the other two judges regarding the punishment.
My local municipal courthouse looks like one of the mock-ups from 10:30, with plain walls and plastic chairs. Meanwhile, the local county, state, and federal courthouses all look beautiful and elaborate. I understand that this is probably just for budget reasons, but the contrast makes the municipal courthouse feel like playing pretend.
I have faith that people actually thought about things like sight lines and access to technology in the more elaborate spaces, but I don’t trust that the municipal one cared at all. And that’s a shame, because people’s futures are being decided there, too.
One of the reasons for a lack of windows is almost certainly security, not just for visuals but precautions against escape or even assassination attempts. The contained sound is because lawyers and their clients have to be able to talk without being overheard, whenever possible.
I’m an acoustician, and designing the sound isolation and acoustical finishes for buildings has been my job for almost 15 years now.
I want to expand on what you said:
A courtroom requiring high amounts of privacy, particularly where a mic and speaker system is being used, should be built with either a staggered and double stride construction and (as you mentioned) multiple layers of gypsum board. And batt insulation, but that true for any wall where you can about some sort of acoustic privacy.
I am not sure what material you had in mind when you said “acoustic filling” - could you mean all holes need to be plugged? All walls have holes in them - some of are outlets, some allow wiring and ductwork to pass through. Most are placed above the ceiling and not visible. For an acoustical sensitive space like a courtroom, they all need to be filled in and plugged. Smaller ones can just be caulked over, but bigger ones require more special treatment. I like the analogy of a trying to carry water in a cracked bowl - you need to fix all the cracks, even the tiniest one, to contain the water.
You also want acoustically absorptive panels in the courtroom itself - the helps cut down on excess reverberant energy and can be imperative when mics are being used. How many and where are dependent on the size of the room, layout chosen, and other types of materials chosen to furnish and decorate the space.
unexpected but very welcome crossover!! I Know it's going to be good!
Hey, can you do one about the difference in design between courtrooms with and without jury? Yes, there are legal systems around the world that has no place for juries or anything of similar role. How does that affect the whole design? Invite LegalEagle to that video as well.
I doubt that affect much, in fact it simplified it a lot more. that's at least two vectors you didn't need to care for, and build.
Canada is like this. Most civil cases don’t involve a jury, whereas many criminal cases do, so we have both. But I’ve never done a jury trial, and never will. Thinking now about the courtrooms I’ve been in, I think most of them do have a jury box, but it’s often quite unobtrusive and seems tucked away. However, and I think this is actually a key thing, we don’t allow lawyers to wander all over the well and in front of the jury box (lawyers have to stay behind a lectern at the counsel table) or have sidebars with the judge. That convention changes a lot about how the room is used and how it has to be laid out.
@@dl2725 I think the well thingy is just Hollywood BS ...
@dl2725 hmm
That historic building in Chicago - why don't they put tint on the court house windows so the inside isn't visible, then they can use the old building for something?
My initial reaction to Devon: I blocked Legal Eagle a long time ago due to his political vitriol. I'd rather not see him anywhere on TH-cam because he insists on representing himself as part of the edutainment genre while using the audience to draw attention to his political agenda. Regardless of when I agreed with him or disagreed, I found it extremely improper to use an education based channel on the platform to spread a political message. He should have made a second channel and kept the two topics separate.
I liked his content before he decided to transition into a political talking head disguised as an educator. This video was reminiscent (sp?) of the time before he became political. I've seen him do other collabs recently and enjoyed them. Maybe he is on a path to redemption and decided to separate his politics from his edutainment content.
This collab was great. It was a risk and came out well. Devon has a lot of entertainment and education to contribute to the platform when done properly.
Had the same reaction. Edutainment and propaganda aren’t happy bedfellows.
Pretty much my thoughts, he was great until he became political.
One major problem I see with the Jeffersonian revival style is the inability to televise proceedings without compromising the privacy of the Jury
Great video!
Some additions that might have been interesting to mention would be the location of a courthouse within a city. In the southern United States, the courthouse is regularly the center of the town with small stores revolving around that center point. Being at the center places law at the center of society, "a nation of laws," with other systems of power that might place religious, monarchy, or commercial markets at the center of their societies, therefore having palatial squares, cathedral squares (Milan) or market squares (Covent Garden) and more. Contemporary courthouse designs from Jean Nouvel and the red courtroom in "Le Palais de justice de Nantes" or Morphosis "Wayne Lyman Morse United States Courthouse" might have been interesting to explore as well.
Small typo at 2:28 - "Leagal"
The commentary on form and function is something I think about a lot. I feel it leaves out the human side of design which is an aspect I think we tend to gloss over in architecture school/ discussing theory. They way you bring that to light here in the context of courtroom design is very interesting! You're an inspiration for a young architecture creator like myself :)
Great topic Stewart, I’ve always thought design affects most aspects in our lives and here is a clear example.😊
When I was in college I read a fantastic book by Bruce Lincoln called "Authority: Construction and Corrosion". The books focus was basically on how authority comes down to who gets to speak and how often in those places which impart authority (the senate, courtrooms, etc), and he talked a decent amount about different places where adjudication happens throughout time and cultures. It'd be great to see a survey of historical court design throughout history, in some places it was literally a circle on the ground and the presence of rod of office and a law keeper. In Germania it was a specific time, a specific day of the week, as well.
Sequel: the architecture of fan-like parliament such as US Congress vs Westminster-style facing benches.
After watching that video, I can see how little thought goes into Brazilian courtroom architecture. For most trials, it's just a regular room with a dinner table, some chairs, and one desk for the judge and another one for the courtclerk.
For jury trials, it looks more the American version. The state jury courtroom in my hometown is in a 19th century building that hasn't changed all that much since its inception. There's a lot of wood surfaces, but a dock is something I had never seen before.
Was expecting this but was a witness, in the middle of the room. Audience behind me. Jury in front if me. Judge behind the jury. Prosecution to my left and defence to my right. Very sensible but nerve racking. AH, the Jefferson one but everyone is closer than the diagram
Having Legal Eagle as a legal reference, its like having Andrew Dice Clay as a marriage counselor.
You do know He is an actual lawyer?
@slingingmeat123 yes. But just because you passed the bar doesn't mean you're good.
@@derekbootle8316 Why is he a bad lawyer?
@@derekbootle8316Dude got his bachelor's with honors and then graduated law school with an A- average. How about you?
I was part of a jury for a civil trial (big oil & tanker co versus dead Seamans family), after a witness had finished we were sent to the jury room (forgot reason), where we started laughing (not loudly), sure the witness was a company man (tanker co.), but moments later the bailiff told us the Judge and lawyers heard us through the closed door. ;-)
No, we didn't say why we laughed until deliberations.
I feel like you brought up biases, showed an example of how the dock creates strong bias, and then never touched on it again. Nothing on how the different layouts combat or create biases towards or against any which party (the jury literally being on the side of one party might have an effect, for example) except for the bias towards... respecting the justice system?
I missed the parts that the video title describes was it just the glass box?
Verdit for Stewart: to make more insightful videos (and collaborations) like this! But that shouldn’t be a problem as there’s a precedent with content always well curated and very entertaining to watch 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
...I want to conduct an experiment. I want to change the layout of the courtroom, Having it be perfectly symmetrical, The jury being essentially on the pews, Judge in front, Prosecutor on one and defendant on the other- And I want to make it truly as realistic as possible. Being able to devise a few fake trials would likely be doable, And I want to find out if there is a bias for if someone’s on the left or the right. Maybe even see if making them closer to one side would shift their bias towards that side. I think that would be a great experiment to run.
Very interesting. Something most of us never think about.
Court rooms are a clear case of the need for form to follow function. The most important aspect is the perspective of the jury. Their attention should be focused on the defendant, the accused, the respective attorneys, witness while giving testimony, and other evidence presented. Anything that distracts from that is a detriment to justice.
Jury sight lines should be taken into account. For example, court observers, and judges can influence juries with body language and facial expressions even if it is unintentional.
@barryrobbins7694 what design is best then
@@longiusaescius2537 I like the balance of the Jeffersonian courtroom layout the most, but in addition to the sidebar issue mentioned, the other issue is where to put observers. Facial expressions and body language might have some subtle effects on the jury. These things seem trivial until a jury has to decide whether or not to put someone away for life - or worse. It would be great if observers were out of the direct sight line of the jury.
@@barryrobbins7694 smart glass or intercoms maybe?
@@longiusaescius2537 The defense and prosecution could switch sides like is done in sports. People tend to look in certain directions based upon what they are thinking. Maybe it’s not a significant though.
@@barryrobbins7694 put the observers on the sides on balconies?
I would like to hear about Devin's comment on sidebars between lawyers and judges. Are they important to make the courtroom run smoothly, to admonish a lawyer or point out a mistake the judge made, or are sidebars social intersections that could lead to friendly relationships which may sway a judge?
Id like to know too
Sidebars aren’t social interactions. They’re short, on the record discussions that the jury and public need to be unable to hear. Defense, say, doesn’t think Prosecution should be allowed to present this or that piece of information they were about to share, so the judge needs to rule if it is relevant and admissible or if presenting it to the jury will harm the integrity of the proceedings. Or, say, a potential member of the jury needs to reveal something personal that might affect his or her suitability to be on the jury but which might be uncomfortable to share in open court (if you are yourself a victim of sexual assault, for example, you might feel that could affect your ability to decide impartially on an assault case - counsel needs to know that, but you might not want to say that audibly to everyone). So you need a space where the judge, both sides’ counsel, reporter, and potentially an additional party can quietly confer without being overheard - but it needs to be within the courtroom in most cases.
🤔 I don’t do jury trials so don’t quote me on this, but I believe in Canada we don’t do “sidebars”. If a discussion has to take place without the jury, the jury files out of the room back to their chambers, and then a voir dire is conducted
Glad you're using your platform to figure out how architecture contributes to social norms, i really liked your video on building spaces so they're more multi use and not single use.
This is a great video with a bad title. The video barely talks about the Biasedness of courtrooms but it mostly covers courtroom layouts and a bit about how they are designed.
I've been in two courtrooms - once suing my employer for wages, once as a victim of theft (robbery? Legal definitions sometimes ride on irrelevant technicalities, and it wasn't in the US anyway). Neither had *any* stuff-for-tradition's-sake that I remember. They mostly resembled classrooms - some tables (I think both times in a U shape), chairs (neither were anything special), and some people - of course, neither was a "big" case. I think all had one entrance. No juries in Germany, of course, we have _Schöffen_ (criminal cases) and _ehrenamtliche Richter_ (civil cases) - essentially the same thing, each has their job for 5 years, and they have the same voting rights as the professional judges, 8:3 for criminal cases and I believe 2:1 (non-professional vs. professional judges) is common in civil cases. And the "smaller" cases (such as both I experienced) go with only a professional judge.
They still use a dock in Queensland, Au. In fact, the newly constructed QEII law courts in Brisbane have a dock for criminal trials.
Here's a thought: maybe the courtroom is no longer needed? At least as an architectural space. It could potentially be turned entirely virtual instead.
Encrypted videoconferencing over a LAN using open-source software could do the job (and I specify a LAN and open-source software because you definitely shouldn't be trusting anything like this to commercial services or the wider Internet). That way you could just use standard offices in an ordinary office building and keep everyone separate by just assigning them to different rooms around the building.
Hell, you could limit the video portion to just things that need to be shown to everyone and totally anonymise everything else. You're not going to have to worry about witness intimidation if the witness only appears as a generic static silhouette on a screen with their voice modified by software to sound completely different. The prosecution and defence need never know who the judge and jury are. Even better, if the nature of the case doesn't require matching anyone's appearance or voice, the entire case could be done entirely anonymously, avoiding potential biases in anyone involved.
Also, that empty building that faces the court building should be converted to a datacentre. Computers aren't going to be doing any looking through the windows, and if you're really concerned about the technicians looking out there, then just put up mirrors against the windows on that side that'll block the view from inside and reflect the heat back out.
Feat: Legal Eagle.
The fastest “Don’t recommend this channel” I’ve hit in a while. Thanks!
legal eagle is in his mid 2000's tpain era, back to back to back features, all hits
Sampled a few of the comments below and it seems most agree the Jeffersonian/Virginian layout is the winner. I would improve on it by sliding the lawyers' tables up to the bench and the jury down. Having the spectators behind the back of the witness may have an unintended consequence of psychological vulnerability, with unseen faces behind and the rest of court facing you on all sides. Perhaps the best solution is to stick with the layout shown and to either ask the jurors to leave during the sidebar, or for the judge and lawyers to convene in a small room behind the bench?
Been thinking about this some more. Jury and witness swapped in the above suggestion, with jury's back to the spectators and the witness and recorder in front of the bench, at an angle so the judge still has a sight line.
@8:13 I've never been inside a courtroom where the lawyer's tables weren't both facing the bench. The only time I've even seen that in media is in UK courtrooms.
Heads up… love your work and style… as well, I’m a fan of Devon’s clever, candid and comedic legal videos. Just letting you know, when he is introduced at 2:27-ish, Legal Eagle is misspelled. The video currently shows, “Leagle Eagle”. Anyway, keep up the good work and let me know if you ever want colab (I’m a creative visual designer, musician and artist of may mediums). I’m using a burner TH-cam account currently but I’d gladly send my details…
Devin
Everyone instinctively know that the Accused is Guilty, or they would not be accused. Simple Smoke from Fire rule of life. I remember in my early days the rule of "Perry Mason" during the trial the real guilty person would stand up and admit it OR the accused MUST be guilty! Simplistic as can be, Right!.
This video makes me wonder why architects , or whoever decides where exterior walkways will go, aren’t better at predicting all the shortcuts people will take, and make those ways walkways to begin with. Everywhere you go in a big multi building complex you see worn paths through landscaping areas where people have decided to go instead of using the prescribed walkways.
Legal Eagle collaborating everywhere O.o
I think that if I was on an attorney, that I would prefer the center bench. But if I was a judge or juror, that I would prefer the Jeffersonian Revival.
I actually think the jury on the right is a very genius design, because if the jury is in front of the judge, it has the implication of some kind of public power behind the control of the legal rulings, and it is not possible to be objective in looking at the whole environment.
At the same time victims and defendants will subconsciously face the judge (they need to focus on the law itself rather than the person who is adjudicating justice, and will not subconsciously use the jury as some sort of target of attack, a form of protection for each other), and the enforcer of the law as the center of the vision needs to be given the absolute spotlight, whereas true justice will always derive from objectivity provided by a third party, which is a reflection of democracy.
I rather like the idea of jury power rather than judge power, but I would definitely extend to appeals and supreme courts. Law clerks can assist with the actual laws, while juries can interpret those laws. Imagine the supreme Court consisting of actual lay people from across the country deciding things like abortion and corporate personhood, instead of the current appointees.
True judicial independence.
@@yuki-sakurakawa The system itself has been around for almost a couple hundred years now, it's not necessarily perfect but any modifications made nowadays will cause great changes in the future.
Many systems in human history have been agreed upon, but not entirely without reason. At least over a long period of development all the surrounding elements adapt and change with them.
If new configurations are to be attempted, they can be tested on a small scale to begin with, but the core of judicial independence and citizen oversight must be carried through to the end, and the separation of powers is the only guarantee that relative fairness can be maintained at this time.
Any system that exists for a long period of time becomes more and more difficult to change, but at the same time both advantages and disadvantages are gradually revealed. The core of the jury system is to ensure that power is not centralized in the judge alone, and that the jury's own qualities can only be guaranteed through citizenship; this system is not perfect in terms of the rigor of the trial, but it does safeguard the judicial power from large-scale abuses, as its bribery The cost of bribery and the cost of the risk of being exposed can become very high, it's not perfect, but at least it guarantees a certain degree of fairness to the underprivileged, and for a federal country where you can't expect the same circle of literate political environments from state to state (and each state has different conditions and limitations for enforcing its laws), this system at least achieves maximum applicability.
The system does need to be optimized nowadays, as it has been around long enough to show that on the one hand it is fairly stable, but on the other hand it has created a lot of inconveniences and loopholes (although additional laws have been added to fill them as well) If it is going to be optimized in terms of architectural design, it should be based on the judicial fairness and objectivity behind it, and it should greatly satisfy the need for equality of all parties, without creating an absolutely antagonistic perspective and environment The angle of attack of the creation. There are many needs behind this (material and spiritual), but the courtroom itself is the embodiment of the structure of justice, and this is the main point.
The rationale for the original design of the system and its historical context was based on maximum applicability and relative fairness, not "truth in adjudication".
From the perspective of system design, in the historical context of that year, you would face completely different enforcement environments in different parts of the United States (the West and the East are not the same cultural atmosphere at all), and towns and cities in different levels of development in those years, with different races and classes, and different levels of education, so the system itself can only be said to be the least costly way to ensure that the rules of the game competition to ensure as much fairness as possible (to avoid the majority advantage and the advantages of different assets and classes) and the case itself. Advantage and different assets and class advantages) and the case itself has nothing to do with the right or wrong, this system is not for detectives to use (to find out the truth), the system itself is only to maximize the care of the competitive advantages of all parties (to avoid complete zero-sum game), while minimizing the cost of manpower (there were not so many graduates of the law school, a district at most, there are only judges and sheriffs)
These laymen were originally added to try to avoid bribery, if there was only one judge then any ruling could be settled with money, and while you could just buy out a jury, that number of people directly increases the cost of actually doing it and the risk of being sued, and on the other side of the coin, these laymen actually historically pre-date the "The earliest court itself was a group of laypeople gathered to decide on punishment, and the "professional judge" is the later. Public power in this adjudication can only exist to maintain order in the courtroom, and the system itself is designed to safeguard the balance of competing powers, not to adjudicate the truth.
From your name and your way of thinking, I think you are from an eastern country, and your way of thinking and understanding of the court system has to do with your own cultural environment and history. The legal system in China or Japan is based on the adjudication by professional officials sent down from the local level (backed by the credibility of the system represented by the imperial power), and the enforcement of justice is in the hands of the local officials, who have the obligation to solve the case, which is a very different thing from the western court system. The professionalism and integrity of these people directly determines the merits of the outcome of the ruling, this point and the Western court system is completely different from the two sets of historical background of the two products, can not be put into the discussion together.
The core of the Western legal system is to maintain the fairness of the competition, while the core of the Eastern legal system is to maintain the authority of the final interpretation of the truth, the two development of the cultural background and period is completely different.
@@yuki-sakurakawa
@@yuki-sakurakawa The biggest problem facing the system at the moment does come out of the jury, which is after all the main weakness of the system, because the people who designed it back then didn't anticipate two things : one is the impact of the immigrant culture on the civic culture in the US (racist politically correct tactics as well as the invocation of same-ethnicity empathy), and the other is the fact that the super-rich and powerful people (who have enough money or power to control entire juries as well as the media), but it's been successful in terms of increasing their spending, except how else can you take these totally polarized and heavily class differences and racial issues in today's world and be able to do better. So in the end, unless you're willing to put a gun to their head and force them to tell the truth, there are still more ways for the powerful and wealthy to find an advantage from this system (or any system).
@@pen8376
What is your suggestion?
Very cool, I didn't know they went to this effort with the ballistics wood, and the sound proofing.
The all woodgrain esthetic is a little over used in my opinion. Need some masonry-looking surfaces to bring some variety.
While windows and security is a concern, maybe add in faux windows or fiber optic light pipe to bring a semblance of outdoor lighting?
It's 2023.
Time for courtrooms to enter the modern age.
Run the trial sans jury. Transcribe the trial. Eliminate all sustained objections.
Jury reads the testimony, examines the evidence and renders a verdict.
Eliminate all bias by referring to those involved as plaintiff and defendant. No names. No references to gender, ethnicity or anything else.
I would prefer that than being asked for pronouns. I wish they'd do that everywhere not just courtrooms.
Yes, fully anonymizing justice to an almost robotic extent. Sounds like a great idea. Could replace the judge with an AI trained on the U.S. law and Constitution, too, and it'd probably do a better job than our current judges.
What about jurors' questions? How would that be handled without the jury in the courtroom?
The last courtroom I was in had white washed drywall, a dull, low pile grey carpet, & oppressive fluorescent lighting.
I was on the jury, but the room had a banal clerk who was giddy telling the judge that he could send the jury home. Neither the plaintiffs, nor the defendant bothered to show.
I recall one courtroom witha spectacular view behind the judges. It was hard to keep focused on what was going on in court if I wasn't directly involved.