“POWER, STATUS, AND EMOTION MANAGEMENT IN PROFESSIONAL COURT WORK–THE CASE OF JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS” (an evaluation using the lens of sociology of power)
Introduction
For my evaluative paper I have selected a journal entry in the Working Paper Series published by the Department of Sociology — University of Stockholm entitled: “POWER, STATUS, AND EMOTION MANAGEMENT IN PROFESSIONAL COURT WORK–THE CASE OF JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS”.
As a lawyer-sociologist, I’ve selected this paper since it deals with an Institution that I am very much familiar with and is one of my interest since I am into Socio-Legal Studies, the aim of the evaluation is to look the structures of power within the Criminal Justice Institution of Courts and Prosecution Service.
How was the study conducted?
A. Background
The study examined key characteristics of the work tasks of judges and prosecutors from a power and status perspective, discerning how emotions tie into this perspective.
The study is conducted by doing court observation, interviews and shadowing of judges and prosecutors at four Swedish district courts and prosecution offices.
For analytical purposes the research adopted a split power concept: power over and power to. The judges’ rather distinct power over requires a certain status in order to be comfortably executed, counteracting guilt and shame in relation to lay people.
The research highlighted the malleable and relativistic dimensions of power and status, and above all their inherent emotional qualities.
The research is funded by the Swedish Research Council (2011–1553).
B. Methodology
This research draws from a multi-sited case study (Marcus, 1995), covering four strategically selected Swedish district courts and their respective prosecutions offices.
Data was collected 2012–2015 through a combination of ethnographic methods: observations, interviews and shadowing.
Shadowing implies following one person for a specified period.
Members of each profession with diverse career background, years of experience, age, and sex were shadowed in order to study the preparation of cases and the shift between front and back stage performance.
The researcher accompanied the participant when in court and made court observations. In relation to the shadowing the researcher also conducted semi-structured interviews on general topics combined with questions related to the observed hearings.
This strategy both enabled the researcher to validate their observations and to concretize questions and reflections with specific events (McDonald, 2005); a valuable approach given that the participants were not used to reflect on and talk about emotions.
A. Sociology of Power in Criminal Justice System a more nuanced understanding
The research paper is relevant and important piece of sociological study in the understanding of structures of power in the field of Criminal Justice system which is often neglected by most sociologist.
As a field where “power” relationship is very much apparent based on one’s standing or role, where legitimation, legality, and authority intermingle. Insights given by this kind of study provides windows for making sense of realities that power is not just socially constructed within the court room but also institutionalized by the roles played by different agents of the justice system.
The court is an important field for sociologist since this is where life, liberty, and property are adjudged. And as sociologist whose main task is not just understanding society but making use of those knowledge in practical and applied way of sharing the knowledge to the public of how realities are social construction and roles and power structures matter a lot, in currently realties would tell us that courts is one of the fields where most of changes within society happens.
B. Sociology of Power in Socio-Legal Studies
Sociology of Law aims to transcend traditional legal boundaries by bringing into consideration the role of society and its system of values and norms.
In the study the actors / participants that are the main subject of the studies belong to an institution rarely studied by most sociologist but understanding their behaviors and the institution they operate is crucial for providing a more critical appreciation of an institution where power is synonymous with people holding the title be it lawyer, prosecutor, or a judge.
Expanding our theoretical knowledge on the concept of ´power over´ and ´power to´ would provide sociologist with the right framework in analyzing the constructs in the institution of the courts.
In the research study above one can analyze the role power, relationships, and expertise all of which are elements of structures of power.
Results and findings of the study?
The study ended with the following findings:
1. The judge — comfort and unease of ´power over´
In accordance with the adversarial court procedure in Sweden, the judge’s role is to pass judgement on the material presented by the parties (prosecutor and defence), and to preside in court. A judge’s obligation to make independent decisions is an example of power over, while the performance of the chairman role also engages power to. Swedish judges in general have an ambivalent relationship to power over, we argue, because it does not rhyme with a Swedish cultural orientation towards consensus (Daun, 1996). Especially novice judges express unease at the idea of their power.
2. The prosecutor — managing emotions of status and ´power to´
Contrasting the often lonesome and autonomous work of the judge, prosecutors rely on an array of relations to other professionals who can either ease or obstruct their work, regardless of the formal juridical power relation that puts prosecutors on top. This makes the prosecutors’ professional role distinct from judges’, in the sense that prosecutors continuously need to imagine other’s reactions to the measures and decisions that they take.
Prosecutors’ dependency on collaboration with other professions such as the police makes power over a paper construct, highlighting power to as a mutual according of status that enables one to perform, in a position of superior and subordinate, in the situation where the superior depends on the acquiescence of the subordinate. Status-giving thus accords power to.
In court, prosecutors are independent players, representing the state, but they are also dependent on the other court professional to gain situational status and they are formally subordinated to the judge. The latter may affect prosecutors’ power to do their work in court, and in this sense the relationship echoes the one between the prosecutors and the police. Contrary to that relationship, however, the prosecutor cannot escape a judge who obstructs, scolds or scorns his or her work. In other words, judges are not as reluctant to use power over prosecutors and defence lawyers, as they are in relation to lay people, since other legal actors by definition subscribe to the norms and legitimacy of the legal system.
REFERENCES
Wettergren, Å., & Bergman Blix, S. (2015). POWER, STATUS, AND EMOTION MANAGEMENT IN PROFESSIONAL COURT WORK–THE CASE OF JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS. Department of Sociology Working Paper, No 23.
