This research focuses on status and territory within a North Carolina Superior Court. An effort is made to determine which court members are the most dominant and how such dominance is associated with spatial and organizational characteristics of the courtroom. A critique is given of the adversary relationship between the prosecution and the defense, and several inequities in this relationship are outlined. Territorially, the structure of the courtroom is found to be weighted in favor of the prosecution. This partial ethnography reveals several potential fallacies in the courtroom physical and organizational structure and suggests areas for future research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Argyle, M. & Dean, J.Eye-contact, distance, and affiliation. Sociometry, 1965, 28, 289-304.
2.
Austin, W. T. & Bates, F. L.Ethological indicators of dominance and territory in a human captive population. Social Forces, 1974, 52, 447-455.
3.
Austin, W. T.Can photography aid the sociologist?British Journal of Photography, May1976, 123, 430-431.
4.
Ball, D. W.Microecology: Social Situations and Intimate Space. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1973.
5.
Barton, A. H. & Lazarsfeld, P. F.Some functions of qualitative analysis in social research. In G. J. McCall & J. L. Simmons (Eds.), Issues in Participant Observation: A Text and Reader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969.
6.
Bates, F. L. & Harvey, C. C.The Structure of Social Systems. New York: John Wiley, 1975.
7.
Becker, H. S.Photography and sociology . Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communications, 1974, 1, 3-26.
8.
Eisenstein, J. & Jacobs, H.Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts. Boston: Little, Brown, 1977.
9.
Goffman, E.Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books, 1971.
10.
Hall, E. T.A System for the notation of proxemic behavior . American Anthropologist, 1963, 65, 1003-1026.
11.
Hall, E. T.The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966.
12.
Hall, E. T.Proxemics . Current Anthropology, 1968, 9, 83-95.
13.
Hazard, J. N.Furniture arrangement as a symbol of judicial roles . ETC.: A Review of General Semantics. 1962, 19, 181-188.
14.
Keating, C. , Mazur, A., & Segall, M. H.Facial gestures which influence the perception of status. Sociometry, 1977, 40, 374-378.
15.
Knight, D. J. , Langmeyer, D., & Lundgren, D. C.Eye-contact, distance, and affiliation: The role of observer bias. Sociometry, 1973, 36, 390-401.
16.
Libby, W. L. , Eye-contact and direction of looking as stable individual differences. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1970, 4, 303-312.
Mileski, M.Courtroom encounters: An observational study of a lower criminal court . Law and Society Review, 1971, 5, 473-481.
19.
Newman, D. J.Introduction to Criminal Justice. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1975.
20.
Reiss, A. J.Systematic observation of natural social phenomena. In H. L. Costner (Ed.), Sociological Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971.
21.
Sommer, R.Studies in Personal Space . Sociometry, 1959, 22, 247-260.
22.
Sommer, R.Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969.
23.
Stea, D.Space, Territory and Human Movements . Landscape, 1965, 15, 13-16.
24.
U.S. Department of Justice . LEAA Newsletter, 1976, 6, 1-6.
25.
U.S. Department of Justice . LEAA Newsletter, 1977, 6, 6.
26.
Webb, E. J. , Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L.Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Science. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.
27.
Wiseman, J. P.Drunk Court: The Adult Parallel to Juvenile Court. In W. B. Sanders (Ed.), The Sociologist as Detective: An Introduction to Research Methods. New York: Praeger, 1976.
