The courtroom as a built environment
On the usefulness of Amos Rapoport’s theoretical framework
##plugins.pubIds.doi.readerDisplayName##:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1230Gako-hitzak:
courtroom architecture, communication in courtroom, Environment-Behaviour Study, Amos RapoportLaburpena
Amos Rapoport is one of the pioneers of the studies on the relationship between people and their environments. At the same time, analyzing the built environment as a factor co-determining human interactions in the courtroom tends to be more and more popular in literature. Following this line, the paper aims to consider whether Rapoport’s theoretical framework (especially its part related to non-verbal communication through the environment) could be fruitfully applied to the study of the courtroom, especially to shed some light on the spatial, physical, or architectural aspects of the courtroom (which is treated as a particular environment). This paper offers a very initial, preliminary examination of the usefulness of Rapoport’s framework in reference to the courtroom interior. What needs to be stressed is that, rather than focusing on a given jurisdiction as a point of reference when elaborating on the usefulness of Rapoport’s framework, the authors try to examine its general applicability.
##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF_11_6S_Stepien_Dudek_OSLS (English) 339
XML_11_6S_Stepien_Dudek_OSLS (English) 1394
Erreferentziak
Altman, I., 2000. Amos Rapoport: Scholar, Conscience and Citizen of the Environment and Behaviour Field. In: K.D. Moore, ed., Culture-meaning-architecture: Critical Reflections on the Work of Amos Rapoport. London: Routledge.
Austin, W.T., 1982. Portrait of a Courtroom Social and Ecological Impressions of the Adversary Process. Criminal Justice and Behavior [online], 9(3), 286–302. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854882009003003 [Access 20 September 2021].
Barshack, L., 2010. The Constituent Power of Architecture. Law, Culture, and the Humanities [online], 7(2), 217–243. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1743872109355549 [Access 20 September 2021].
Bradley, R.V.V., 1970. A Critical Analysis of the Writings of Amos Rapoport. Journal of Architectural Education [online], 24(2/3), 16–25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1970.11102460 [Access 20 September 2021].
Branco, P., 2016. Courthouses as Spaces of Recognition, Functionality and Access to Law and Justice: A Portuguese Reflection. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 6(3), 426–441. Available from: https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/497 [Access 20 September 2021].
Branco, P., 2018. Considering a Different Model for the Family and Children Courthouse Building. Reflections on the Portuguese Experience. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 8(3), 400–418. Available from: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-0940 [Access 20 September 2021].
Cobley, O., and Schulz, P.J., eds., 2013. Theories and Models of Communication. Mouton: De Gruyter.
Collins, C.S., and Stockton, C.M., 2018. The Central Role of Theory in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods [online], 17, 1–20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918797475 [Access 20 September 2021].
Dahlberg, L., 2016. Spacing Law and Politics: The Constitution and Representation of the Juridical. London: Routledge.
DesBaillets, D., 2018. Representing Canadian Justice: Legal Iconography and Symbolism at the Supreme Court of Canada. International Journal of Law in Context [online], 14(1), 132–156. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552317000180 [Access 20 September 2021].
Doerksen, L.E., 1989-90. Out of the Dock and Into the Bar: An Examination of the History and Use of the Prisoner’s Dock. Criminal Law Quarterly, 32, 478–502.
Epstein, B., 2018. Social Ontology. In: N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [online]. Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/social-ontology/ [Access 29 January 2021].
Fox, J.R., 2014. Visual Art in American Courthouses. In: A. Wagner, R.K. Scherin, eds., Law, Culture and Visual Studies. Cham: Springer.
Gélinas, F., et al., 2015. Foundations of Civil Justice: Toward a Value-Based Framework for Reform. Cham: Springer.
Greenberg, A., 1987. Symbolism in Architecture: Courtrooms. In: N. Glazer, M. Lilla, eds, The Public Face of Architecture: Civic Culture and Public Spaces. New York: Free Press.
Hall, E.T., 1966. The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Hazard, J.N., 1962. Furniture Arrangement as a Symbol of Judicial Roles. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 19(2), 181–188.
Heidari, A.A, Hoseini, P.M., and Behdadfa, N., 2014. Reading a Home: An Application of Rapoport's Viewpoint in Iranian Architecture Studies. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development [online], 4(1), 63–74. Available from: https://ijaud.srbiau.ac.ir/article_2500.html [Access 20 September 2021].
Jeffrey, A., 2019. Legal Geography 1: Court Materiality. Progress in Human Geography [online], 43(3), 565–573. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517747746 [Access 20 September 2021].
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Law-Viljoen, B., ed., 2006. Light on a Hill: Building the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Parkwood: David Krut.
Levine, S.J., 1997. Religious Symbols and Religious Garb in the Courtroom: Personal Values and Public Judgments. Fordham Law Review, 66(4), 1505–1540.
Marks, A., et al., 2016. What is a Court? A Report by JUSTICE [online]. London. Available from: https://files.justice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/06170726/JUSTICE-What-is-a-Court-Report-2016.pdf [Access 20 September 2021].
McGee, K., 2014. Bruno Latour: The Normativity of Networks. Abingdon: Routledge.
McGee, K., ed., 2015. Latour and the Passage of Law. Edinburgh University Press.
McKimmie, B.M., Hays, J.M. and Tait, D., 2016. Just Spaces: Does Courtroom Design Affect How the Defendant is Perceived? Psychiatry, Psychology and Law [online], 23(6), 885–892. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1174054 [Access 20 September 2021].
Moore, K.D., ed., 2000. Culture-Meaning-Architecture. Critical Reflections on the Work of Amos Rapoport. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Mulcahy, L., 2007. Architects of Justice: The Politics of Courtroom Design. Social and Legal Studies, 16(3), 383–403.
Mulcahy, L., 2011. Legal Architecture: Justice, Due Process and the Place of Law. Abingdon: Routledge.
Mulcahy, L., 2013. Putting the Defendant in Their Place: Why Do We Still Use the Dock in Criminal Proceedings? British Journal of Criminology [online], 53(6), 1139–1156. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azt037 [Access 20 September 2021].
Mulcahy, L., and Rowden, E., 2019. The Democratic Courthouse. London: Routledge.
Rapoport, A., 1990. The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Rapoport, A., 1994. Spatial Organization and the Built Environment. In: T. Ingold, ed., Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology: Humanity, Culture and Social Life. London: Routledge.
Rapoport, A., 1997. Theory in Environment-Behavior Studies: Transcending Tunes, Settings, and Groups. In: S. Wapner et al., eds., Handbook of Japan-United States Environment-Behavior Research: Toward a Transactional Approach. New York: Plenum Press.
Rapoport, A., 2000. Science, Explanatory Theory, and Environment-Behavior Studies. In: S. Wapner et al., eds., Theoretical Perspectives in Environment-Behavior Research. Underlying Assumptions, Research Problems, and Methodologies. New York: Plenum Press.
Rapoport, A., 2005. Culture, Architecture, and Design. Chicago: Locke Science.
Rapoport, A., 2008a. Environment-Behaviour Studies: Past, Present, and Future. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 4, 267–281.
Rapoport, A., 2008b. Some Further Thoughts on Culture and Environment. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), 16–39.
Resnik, J., and Curtis, D., 2011. Representing Justice: Invention, Controversy, and Rights in City-states and Democratic Courtrooms. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Resnik, J., Curtis, D., and Tait, J., 2014. Constructing Courts: Architecture, the Ideology of Judging, and the Public Sphere. In: K. Sherwin and A. Wagner, eds., Law, Culture & Visual Studies, Berlin: Springer.
Richardson, C., 2008. Symbolism in the Courtroom: An Examination of the Influence of Non-verbal Cues in a District Court Setting on Juror Ability to Focus on the Evidence. Saarbrücken: VDM.
Rock, P., 1991. Witnesses and Space in a Crown Court. British Journal of Criminology, 31(3), 266–279.
Rosenbloom, J.D., 1998. Social Ideology as Seen Through Courtroom and Courthouse Architecture. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts [online], 22(463), 463–523. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1445952 [Access 11 October 2021].
Rossner, M., et al., 2017. The Dock on Trial: Courtroom Design and the Presumption of Innocence. Journal of Law and Society, 44(3), 317–344.
Shakouri, R., and Namdari, A., 2018. Study of the Mechanism for Organizing the Environment with the Minimum Physical Elements (Through the lens of Amos Rapoport Theory: Organization of Environment) (Case study: Qashqai Nomad’s Dwelling). The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar [online], 15(67), 5–16. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.22034/bagh.2018.80610 [Access 20 September 2021].
Shepard, S., 2006. Should the Criminal Defendant Be Assigned a Seat in Court? The Yale Law Journal, 115(8), 2203–2210. https://doi.org/10.2307/20455689 [Access 20 September 2021].
Spaulding, N.W., 2012. The Enclosure of Justice: Courthouse Architecture, Due Process, and the Dead Metaphor of Trial. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities [online], 24(1), 311–343. Available from: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlh/vol24/iss1/16/ [Access 20 September 2021].
Tait, D., 2011. Glass Cages in the Dock?: Presenting the Defendant to the Jury. Chicago-Kent Law Review [online], 86(2), 467–495. Available from: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol86/iss2/4 [Access 20 September 2021].
Wendland, M., 2013. Controversy Over the Status of the Communication Transmission Models. Dialogue and Universalism, 23(1), 51–63.
Wolfe, J.S., 1994. The Effect of Location in the Courtroom on Jury Perception of Lawyer Performance. Pepperdine Law Review [online], 21(3), 731–776. Available from: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol21/iss3/2 [Access 20 September 2021].
Wolfe, J.S., 1995. Toward a Unified Theory of Courtroom Design Criteria: The Effect of Courtroom Design on Adversarial Interaction. American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 18(3), 593–656.
Yablon, C.M., 1995. Judicial Drag: An Essay on Wigs, Robes and Legal Change. Wisconsin Law Review, 5, 1129–1153.
##submission.downloads##
Argitaratuta
##submission.howToCite##
Zenbakia
Atala
##submission.license##
##submission.copyrightStatement##
##submission.license.cc.by-nc-nd4.footer##OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
