Stereotypes Of The Justice System

The justice system has some stereotypes of being inefficient and ineffective, but there is a lot more to the story that shows the complexity and intricacies of the justice system. During the past two or three weeks, I have participated in a mock trial case as both as a witness and as a juror. From these experiences, I have learned a lot about the justice system. My new found knowledge and respect for the justice system can be broken down into two categories: the structure/professionalism and the framing of this case or any case. The atmosphere of structure and professionalism was seen with the lengthy process of the procedure of the current laws and the procedure of direct and cross examination on the witness in question. The framing of a case …show more content…
During my mock trial experience, I was surprised of how structurally organized it was with the use of many current laws and procedure. My view of the court structure was changed with many anecdotes. These anecdotes point to very specific individuals in the courtroom. The judge shows this structured view of the courtroom with the judge ruling specific attorneys claims as either sustain or overrule, the mandatory obligation of the participants to stand up when the judge walks in, and the use of language when referring to the judge, the jurors, and the court in general (i.e. your honor). The attorney display structure by direct and cross examination of a witness and the use of evidence and whether it is admissible. The witness and jurors also show structure with both of them having one job function of testifying as a witness or jurors deliberating with other fellow jurors. Structure is a helpful addition to the courts where without it the justice system would not run as fairly and …show more content…
When I originally thought about the courtroom setting, I had this perceived notion that the facts of the cases where the most dominating factor any case. Yet, to my surprise there is a lot of variables that add another layer of understanding of any cases, not all cases are a clear cut verdict. These variables add a gray space in the courtroom setting. Any of these variables can be influenced by anyone in the courtroom. The judge can show this by withholding attorney potential by dismissing their evidence given their lack of reason or might purposely have some sly remarks or movements against one side. As a master storyteller, the attorney is known to purposely frame case to their cause. This type of action can be seen with them submitting evidence while discrediting other possibly damaging evidence, and possibly consuming a longer duration of time when questioning a witness for the purpose of cornering them or intimidating them. Witness can indirectly frame any case by the use of profane or rather obtrusive language for the purpose to pull in the jurors, the judges, and the opposing side attorneys. The jurors can not really change any case, but are on the receiving end and have to determine what side has the best story. The framing of any case is an important step for the general success of any case where it is the under the judgment from the jurors can the justice system