China‑Europa ForumThe Vulgar and the Sacred in courthouse and courtroom
Authors: Professor Linda Mulcahy, LSE, University of London
In this paper I consider the ways in which space within English and European courtrooms and courthouses has been used, and how ideas about its use, have changed over time. Central to my argument is the observation that as the organisation of society has moved from one based on the ideals of feudalism to those of a representative democracy the arrangement of the courthouse has, somewhat paradoxically, become increasingly hierarchical and discourses of containment and surveillance more pervasive. More specifically I attempt to chart the ways in which court architecture has become increasingly segmented, less accessible to the public and control of design taken out of the hands of local populations. Analysis of architectural plans and historical records provide a number of indications of the ways in which changing notions of privacy, due process and decorum have prompted the development of complex spatial configurations in the courtroom which can be seen as running counter to debates about the increasing civil liberties of the defendant or the importance of publicity in the trial. It will become clear that current ways of thinking about how and why the interiors of courthouses and courtrooms should be partitioned into zones, and movement within them restricted, have come about as a result of turf wars about who can legitimately participate on the legal stage and the respect which should be accorded them. I suggest that the containment of the jury and the public, the fortification of the dock, the increasing amount of space allocated to advocates, and the creation of dedicated space for journalists all have complex histories which deserve to be examined and discussed more extensively than they have been to date.