Suffragettes Christabel Pankhurst, Flora Drummond and Emmeline Pankhurst seated in the dock in a crowded courtroom. From the LSE Library through Wikipedia Commons.
Shoshana Paget
Social and Cultural Analysis Ph.D. program
Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Concordia University
1 August 2021
Introduction
The Russian punk rock band Pussy Riot, known for their highly political, feminist messaging, was arrested for protesting in Moscow’s main Russian Orthodox cathedral in 2012. Although the band members posed little security risk, at trial they were held in a glass enclosure, or dock, nicknamed the aquarium, The Russian Constitution holds that accused persons are innocent until proven guilty and yet allows them to be held in iron cages and glass boxes. In Wellington Australia, a defendant charged with involvement in organized crime is held in an open dock, in London and Montréal a glass cage, and in Cairo a glass cage inside another metal cage. Conversely, in Chicago, that same person would sit at the bar next to their lawyer.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the International Criminal Court and many individual jurisdictions have found that the use of a dock is degrading and prejudicial. In 2014, the ECHR ruled that the use of the dock was “incompatible with the standards of civilised behavior that are the hallmark of a democratic society,” and found that “caged docks, independent of specific circumstances of the defendant or trial, were a violation of the Article 3 prohibition against degrading treatment,” as well as Article 6, the right to a fair trial. The very image of a defendant held in a dock challenges the idea of innocent until proven guilty and gives the impression that the accused is dangerous, which may influence the deliberations of the jury. There are also concerns that the courtroom dock limits the accused’s access to counsel, keeps them from hearing their own trial, and can also (it bears repeating) influence the jury’s perception of the defendant. While being an issue into itself, concerns about the use of the dock also point to other similar issues with courtroom design, and the ways that architecture, the literal space and structures of a courthouse and courtroom, can shape the outcomes of justice.
The Dock
The use of the dock has been deemed a violation of human rights in international law and has been disallowed in several countries based on the theory that its use is incompatible with the presumption of innocence and the common law principle that the accused should not be limited or bound in making their defense. Additionally, the dock can affect courtroom acoustics, limit discussion between the accused and counsel, and block the accused from the view of the judge and jury.
To determine the impact of the dock on trial proceedings, Rossner et al conducted an experiment which tested the effect of different dock configurations on jury decisions. The experiment placed the accused in three different positions—at the bar, in an open dock, and in a glass dock—and measured for guilty or not guilty verdicts, perceived strength of evidence, and the likelihood of the accused being found guilty on all elements of the charge. Results showed that those who saw the defendant in a dock, either open or glass, were 1.8 times or 47% more likely to find the defendant guilty. Strikingly, for jurors who are undecided about guilt or innocence based on evidence, the position of the accused in the dock appeared to incline the juror heavily towards a guilty verdict. Additionally, the image of the accused in the dock triggers preconceived prejudices and can cause jurors to pay less attention to the evidence.
Courtroom Design
The physical layout and special zones of the courtroom can also have an effect on jury decisions. For example, can the jury see and hear the person on the witness stand? Who has control of the space and who can move throughout the courtroom unconstrained? Can the prosecution and defense be easily seen and heard? The answer to these questions, suggests Jeffrey S. Wolfe, can impact the jury and influence a verdict. Wolfe, a former U.S. Magistrate Judge, argues that the physical dynamics of courtroom design can affect adversarial interaction and potentially give the defense or prosecution an advantage during trial. To test for such an advantage, Wolfe divided a traditional courtroom into four quadrants and examined juror perception of lawyer performance based on location.
Figure 2: Courtroom divided into quadrants. Image Source: Wolfe, Jeffrey S. “Toward a Unified Theory of Courtroom Design Criteria.”.
Wolfe found that jurors preferred lawyers who stood closer to the jury box and who could be seen easily. As such, those located in quadrant I (see Figure 2) were viewed most favorably while those in quadrant II were preferred over those in quadrant III, and those in III over those in quadrant IV. Interestingly, when lawyers opposed each other, the jury preferred the lawyer standing further away, again indicating a preference for the lawyer they could see and make eye contact with. Changing the location of the jury box, witness stand and counsel tables along with the space lawyers can or cannot access can have various positive and negative effects on jury perceptions and trial outcomes.
The design of traditional courtrooms, like the courtroom in the round or a juxtaposed courtroom, which places the witness stand between the bench and jury box, highlight the importance given to the positions of the witness stand and the jury box. These designs also show how easily and how often courtrooms are built that do not meet the standards of adversarial theory which holds that courtrooms should be a neutral and passive environment.
Figure 3: The familiar courtroom-in-the-round design. Image Source: Wolfe, Jeffrey S. “Toward a Unified Theory of Courtroom Design Criteria.”.
The placement of the witness stand and jury box are significant in determining if a courtroom is a neutral space or gives an advantage to one side or the other. Although not employed as often as might be desired, there are courtroom designs that do not disrupt the necessary angles and dynamics between the witness, jury, and lawyers while maintaining the neutral space of the courtroom. This space, which gives equal opportunity to both prosecution and defence, is what is necessary for both victim and accused to receive a fair trial.
Figure 4: An octagonal courtroom which angels both jury and witness, and a traditionally designed courtroom with modified angles between jury and witness. Image Source: Wolfe, Jeffrey S. “Toward a Unified Theory of Courtroom Design Criteria.”.
Conclusion
Innocent until proven guilty is a common legal standard held throughout the world, including in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Russia. All of these countries allow the use of the courtroom dock to hold the accused during trial. Yet, international law holds that the use of the dock in any form violates several of the accused’s human rights. The very use of the dock impacts how juries perceive the accused, especially in cases where a juror is not convinced by the evidence. Like the location of the defendant, the placement of other courtroom furnishings can change how a jury perceives a lawyer and their argument, and thus impact the trial outcome. A courtroom should ideally be a neutral space, providing both the victim and accused a fair trial, and the prosecution and defense access to the same advantages. To do so, the design of the courtroom must meet the standards of adversarial theory, with the jury able to see and hear both the witness stand and advocates without obstruction.
Norman Spaulding, however, argues that the very appearance of a courthouse can influence trial participants’ perceptions and behaviors, inspiring reverence, awe and respect, with courthouse buildings drawing architectural inspiration from ancient temples and Anglican churches.
Figure 7: Quebec Court of Appeal, Montreal Canada. Image Source: Montreal Rampage with photo by Mickael Pollard.
While there has been a shift towards courthouses which resemble office buildings, many retain the look of a temple or church with high ceilings, columns, arches, and rooms decorated with hard woods and dark colours. What this does, writes courtroom architect Keith Fentress, is intimidate trial participants, making them feel nervous and uncomfortable. In turn, this can affect the body language of those on the witness stand, giving the impression that they are being untruthful. Less formal courtrooms, on the other hand, with lighter wood, neutral tones, and natural lighting tend to be more welcoming and comfortable for trial participants while still able to use architecture and design to reflect values of justice. The use of the dock, the shape and design of a courthouse and courtroom, all have effects on the people who move through them—be it the judges, jury, advocates, accused persons, or victims. It is imperative that we ask what kind of structures encourage equal access and equal opportunity and best ensures that justice is done, and that we agitate for the (re)construction of the courtroom in line with these ideals. Justice is as much a question of architecture as it is of procedure.
Further Reading:
Brown, Graham. “The Changing Face of Justice.” Architecture AU (2009). Web.
Micheli, Silvia and Antony Moulis. “Brisbane Supreme and District Courts.” Architecture AU (2013). Web.
Mulcahy, Linda. “Architects of Justice: The Politics of Courtroom Design.” Social and Legal Studies 16.3 (2007): 383–403. Web.
Rossner, Meredith et al. “The Dock on Trial: Courtroom Design and the Presumption of Innocence.” Journal of Law and Society 44.3 (2017): 317–344. Web.
Spaulding, Norman W. “The Enclosure of Justice: Courthouse Architecture, Due Process, and the Dead Metaphor of Trial.” Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 24.1 (2012): 311–343. Print.
Tait, David. “Glass Cages in the Dock?: Presenting the Defendant to the Jury.” Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 86.2 (2011): 467–496. Web.
Wolfe, Jeffrey S. “Toward a Unified Theory of Courtroom Design Criteria.” 1 (1995): 1–39. Print.
You must be logged in to post a comment.