 Comparing
Criminal Trials
The globalisation of law makes it increasingly vital to understand the differences
of legal systems. There are two dominant methods of comparison. The first one
(often implicitly) sets one focal system as standard and identifies discrepancies
in other systems. The second one isolates areas of comparison (such as disclosure,
bail, hearsay etc.) from a legal point of view. Both perspectives use thresholds
of comparison that disregard the specificities of legal practices in context
and process.
One can learn from ethnographic comparison here. Components such as
files, witness statements or closing speeches obtain their relevancy
via the position within entire assemblages and processes. In order to
compare the legal features contextually, the four case studies ( UK
, US, Italy , Germany ) focus on the practicalities of legal discourse.
How does this lead to comparison? One can reveal functional problematics
and the contingent methods to tackle them. How, for instance, is decidability
produced? How do practitioners
avoid surprise? How can somebody speak for somebody else? How does the procedural past matter?
The frame of comparison are neither single cases nor entire legal systems. In what we call "thick comparison", we focus rather on different procedural regimes that include certain criminal courts, procedural publics, scriptual economies, legal professions, stages of pre-trial, etc. One finds different regimes within one legal system. Procedural regimes order, link, disrupt and weigh fact producing events. By doing so, they make (un) available a certain procedural history. Hence, our study of criminal procedure focusses on knowing. We study communication processes and decision making in light of the actual knowledge processes and epistemic practices in different procedural regimes. We extended "thick comparison" to studies of political inquiry and, in 2010, to legislative procedure in parliamantary committees.
|
| |
 New activities
I currently conduct ethnographic fieldwork at the German Bundestag.
Agenda
Out now: "Thick Comparison - Reviving the Ethnographic Aspiration" , edited by Scheffer & Niewöhner, BRILL
Out soon: "Adversarial Case-Making" (Scheffer) BRILL
Out soon: "Defence Work and Procedure" (Scheffer, Kozin & Hannken-Illjes) PALGRAVE
Latest
Texts
Scheffer (2010) Knowing how to sleepwalk. Placing Expert Evidence ... OnlineFirst in Science, Technology & Human Values (STHV)
Scheffer (2010) Indirect Moralizing. Early View in Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior (JTSB)
Kozin (2010) Book Note on "Roger Shuy's Fighting over words..." in Language in Society
Teaching in SS 2010
Seminar für Masterstudierende "Kulturen des Parlamentarismus" Mo. 16.00-18.00 am IfEE, HU Berlin
AG "Politische Ethnographie" [anmelden bei scheffer@law-in-action.org]
|
|
THE CASE STUDIES
Comparison
