Abstract
One possible solution to the problem of subjectivity in the interpretation of social phenomena is the application of models derived from formal grounded theory, since such models make explicit the writer's perspective and the assumptions he or she brings to the social situation. This article uses the Status Passage Theory of Glaser and Strauss (1971) to analyze systematically the way in which English Magistrates' Courts deal with defendants. It identifies various features in the courtroom and precourtroom processes and in the attitudes of the courtroom “professionals” that appear consistent with the view that the social degradation of offenders is an implicit, yet important, objective of these courts. Finally, comparisons are made between the lower criminal courts in England and the United States and tentative explanations offered as to why differences exist between social degradation aspects of the two systems.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baldwin, J., & McConville, M.Negotiated justice. London: Martin Robertson, 1977.
Barnard, D.The criminal court in action. London: Butterworths, 1974.
Becker, H. Problems of inference and proof in participation observation.American Sociological Review, 1953,23, 652–660.
Bedford, S.The faces of justice. London: Collins, 1961.
Bell, K., Collinson, P., Turner, S., & Webber, S. National insurance local tribunals.Journal of Social Policy, 1974,3, 289–315.
Bernstein, B.Class codes and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971.
Bottoms, A., & McClean, J.Defendants in the criminal process. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1976.
Bridges, L., Sufria, B., Whetton, J., & White, R.Legal services in Birmingham, Birmingham, England: Institute of Judicial Administration. University of Birmingham, 1973.
Cain, M.Society and the policeman's role. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973.
Carlen, P. Remedial routines for the maintenance of control in magistrates' courts.British Journal of Law and Society, 1974, 101–117.
Carlen, P. Magistrates' courts—A game theory analysis.Sociological Review, 1975, 347–379.
Carlen, P. Magistrate's justice. London: Martin Robertson, 1976.
Davis, A. Sentence for sale.Criminal Law Review, 1971,150–161; 218–228.
Dell, S.Silent in court. London: Bell, 1971.
Ford, P.Advising sentencers. Oxford, England: Blackwell, 1972.
Garfinkel, H. Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies.American Journal of Sociology, 1956,6, 420–424.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A.The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine, 1967.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A.A time for dying. Chicago: Aldine, 1968.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A.Status passage. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971.
Hall, S., & Lamb, L.Clime prevention conference: Journalism, broadcasting and urban crime. Chichester, England: Barry Rose, 1975.
Heberling, S. Conviction without trial.Anglo-American Law Review, 1973, 439–447.
King, M.Bail or custody. London: Cobden Trust, 1971.
King, M.Duty solicitors—An assessment of their impact on a magistrate's court. London: Cobden Trust, 1976.
King, M. Roles and relationships in the magistrate's court—A status passage analysis. Warwick University, England: LL.M. Thesis (unpublished).
Laurie, P.Scotland yard. London: Bodley Head, 1970.
Law Society, TheGuide to the professional conduct of solicitors. London: The Law Society, 1974.
Llewellyn, K. The theory of legal “science”.North Carolina Law Review, 1941,20, 1–23.
Mileski, M. Courtroom encounters: An observation study of a lower criminal court.Law & Society Review, 1971,5, 473–538.
Packer, H.The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969.
Pendragon. Rubbish in the crown court—A judicial filter.Law Society Gazette, March, 1975.
Perry, S.Information for the courts—A new look at social inquiry reports. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Institute of Criminology, 1974.
Piaget, J.The psychology of intelligence (M. Piercy & D. Berlyne, trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971.
Purves, R. That plea bargaining business: Some conclusions from research.Criminal Law Review, 1971, 470–475.
Rosen, L. The dock—Should it be abolished?Modern Law Review, 1966,29, 289–300.
Schwartz, R., & Skolnick, J. A study of social stigma.Social Problems. 1962,10, 133–138.
Seifman, R. The plea bargaining process: Trial by error?New Law Journal. 1977,127, 551–553.
White, S. Homilies in sentencing.Criminal Law Review, 1971, 690–699.
White, S. The presentation in court of social inquiry reports.Criminal Law Review, 1971, 629–637.
Zander, M. Unrepresented defendants in the criminal courts.Criminal Law Review, 1969, 632–645.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This article is an abridged and revised section of the author's LL.M. thesis. Many of the revisions are the result of helpful comments made by Tony Bottoms, Peter Moodie, and Barbara Harrel-Bond on the original thesis.
About this article
Cite this article
King, M. A status passage analysis of the defendant's progress through the Magistrates' Court. Law Hum Behav 2, 183–221 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01039080
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01039080