Courts are central organs of the US executive branches of power, and they play a very important role for the state, as well as for the everyday wellbeing of the people, who live in the country. A court is a governmental organization which has the authority to judge two parties that cannot agree on certain issues. The court is supposed and has the authority to make judgments as to which one of them is right in accordance to current legislation. Courts make judgments in civil, criminal, constitutional and administrative cases so as to bring them into accordance with the rule of law.
There is a traditional approach to the courts. The courts are being seen as the organizations, where parties converse in order to reach an agreement on the matter of their dispute. The judge and the juries are there to help the parties reach the agreement. This is a simple, straight-forward model. It is easier to see the courts in such a light. Meanwhile, it is important to understand that in real fact, by far, not in all cases the agreement is being reached, and the agreement of the parties may very well contradict the letter and the spirit of the law. This is why it is important to find a different way of seeing the problem. Though there are a large number of courts, or, it would be better to say, a large number of different types of courts, it is important to find a single formula for describing their roles.
Each member of the process at court has his/her, very well established and clearly described roles. The whole performance should not be limited to the conversation. Before the conversational part takes place, the judge and the prosecutor, as well as the representatives need to get acquainted with the materials of the case, as well as with the parts of legislation, related to the issue. They are supposed to read all this information in order to reach a clear understanding of the picture. However, each one of the members may have overlooked something in the materials of the case, which are, as a rule, numerous, may not have paid attention to some of the papers and some of the facts, misunderstood something - which is quite human and can be expected. This is what the whole process of court hearings is being designed for. If something is overlooked, or, in the worst case scenario, hidden by one of the parties, there are other people to point at the missing detail, to make the picture look complete and, therefore, bring it into accordance to the letter and the spirit of the law. According to Worrall (2008), there appear more and more cooperation programs implemented into judiciary system of the US, and they bring very promising effects. Various existing programs, in accordance to their interest field, are being connected into sorts of networks, which help each one of those programs work more effectively. This is important to understand that, at the very same time, this also helps save money since only existing programs are being connected and new ones are not being created. The same should refer to the roles of people at court. Their goal is not only to speak up and try to convince each other, but it is much more serious. The goal is to cooperate and collaborate in the name of the law. Their goal is to help each other understand things, which may have been misinterpreted; their role is to point at the things, which may have been overlooked. This is why it is important to speak about co operational, rather than the conversal function of the court. Making agreements does not require the court and the judge to be present at the conversation of the parties. If the parties are ready to reach the agreement, if they are open for the conversation, this conversation should be held beyond the court house.
Read also: "Academic Book Review: How to Complete It"
Meanwhile, when all the participants of the court process collaborate to help each other, is also somewhat idealistic. This is the way things have to look; this is the right way to go, but it is not the way it regularly works. Cole (ND) speaks to express his very critical attitude to the courtrooms. Unfortunately, the court system is far from being ideal. It is important to understand that the decisions are often taken by judges in the atmosphere, when they have to take decisions fast and when there are other workers of the court running around and making noise, distracting from the main activities. Besides, many of the participants of the process simply do not understand their roles in it. Instead of trying to get the clearest picture of the case heard, they oftentimes start persuading each other about how right their position is, oftentimes not appealing to the laws but rather trying to manipulate them and find the most comforting light to show their arguments under.
This is why ideally the courts should be places of cooperation of different participants, willing to put everything in strict order, willing to achieve justice. However, it is not the way things are currently. However, it is definitely the way to go, the right way and the right goal to set. It is hard to say whether or not this goal can ever be achieved, but the whole court system needs to work hard for the achievement of this somewhat idealistic goal.