Courtroom Observation 3 Pages 654 Words

A small number of court discussions on observational techniques tend to focus primarily on juries of "shadows" or "mirrors" (Covington, 1985; McCabe & Purves, 1974; Vinson, 1982). This procedural strategy tries to duplicate a trial jury with an untrained observer being tried; these members are expected to observe and respond to activities similar to actual juries . Shadow juries are usually reported daily by "neutral" observers on websites removed from the court. The tactical strategy gained from these interviews is provided to the lawyer of the client. This method has an intuitive value, but its effectiveness has not been evaluated. It seems that if all relevant features of the jury are consistent in parallel panels, external influences can be minimized. There are only a few accounts on how to complete this process in this matching process or within the time limits that exist in the courts.

More practically, participation in observational technology is severely restricted by the environment of the courts, so it is difficult for sociologists to violate research ethics. The role of the main research provided to the observer participating in the trial seems to be only as an audience. Unlike some traditional observers, court observers do not communicate with the people they observe. Although the court's opinion may be held confidentially, such acts are made publicly and are held in the public court. Investigation of the obstructive behavior of the participant observer paying purely does not depend on my internal moral principle.

There may be a serious problem with the method. In particular, how to draw attention of the observer? With traditional participation methods, observers should be open to the broadest range of phenomena. However, the court is a busy place and it is difficult to analyze everything. One way to deal with this problem is to focus on specific events rather than all observations. However, there are people who are concerned that if observer's attention is based on a specific case theory about a particular problem, there is the possibility of missing 'important' or emerging development. It is suggested that observers should not know in which parties they are employed (Vinson, 1982), but this solution makes it difficult to direct observation to specific evaluation objectives. If the pretest test is valid, you should reduce the risk of unexpected observation to reduce the results of the test.