The Effects Of The Courtroom Work Group On The Criminal Justice System

The Effects Of The Courtroom Work Group On The Criminal Justice System
Name
University
Course Number and Name
Tutor’s Name
Date
Introduction
The United States as a federal system has a central federal government and state government in each of its 50 states. Each state has a complete judicial system comprising of state and federal courts. While there exist some differences between state and federal courts, there are many similarities between the two. When the U.S. constitution was adopted in 1789, all the 13 states that existed at the time had a functional judicial system. State courts were mandated to oversee judicial matters ranging from private civil disputes to criminal cases and family matters. Over time, especially with increasing complexity in the judicial system, it was deemed necessary to form a supreme court to establish a final justice as much as legal matters were concerned. For this reason, the supreme court became the arbitrator, and congress was granted the power to establish other lower courts across the U.S. With the U.S. divided into 91 districts and each respective district served by 2-28 judges, there is an extensive workload. to help manage the workload several other actors, including prosecutors, attorneys, and jurors play an interdependent role in disseminating justice. collectively they forma courtroom workgroup which is defined as an informal courtroom arrangement existing between court actors including judicial officers, criminal defense attorney, and criminal prosecutor. As proposed by Eisenstein and Jacob in 1977, courtroom workgroups consider courtroom participants as collaborators in administering justice, especially in the lower courts. Ideally, the courtroom workgroup deviates from the overall consensus on how justice should be administered and create a model that increases efficiency. Courtroom workgroups entail vital players such as judges, defence attorney, and prosecutors. The courtroom workgroup cores are characterized solely by time-to-time interactions, regular relation relationships, and different roles, which supposedly trigger an efficient case processing. The effects of the courtroom workgroup on the American criminal justice system are significant.
The Courtroom Workgroup, Organization, And Roles
Criminal court trials are founded on the constitutional values of justice, fairness, and due process from a general perspective. Following these fundamental values, criminal court actors seek to attain desirable goals. Accordingly, several characteristics define the U.S courtroom workgroups. First, they exhibit a sense of authority relationships and are held firmly by common goals. Secondly, courtroom workgroups have specialized roles and have a different degree of workplace diversity, stability, and familiarity (Metcalfe, 2016). The other bases of experience, knowledge, and understanding of legal matters give the respective group power and influence. Each courtroom workgroup thrives to offer the best in as much as dissemination of justice is concerned. In the courtroom workgroup, different roles are exhibited. For example, judges strive for fairness and impartiality. In contrast, prosecutors focus mainly on putting all criminals in jail, and defence attorney, on the ...