04. Merry - Going to Court
GOING TO COURT: STRATEGIES OF DISPUTE MANAGEMENT IN AN AMERICAN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD
Overview
The study focuses on strategies residents in a polyethnic American urban neighborhood use to manage interpersonal and crime-related disputes.
Residents frequently resort to courts, but these often do not resolve disputes effectively; instead, courts serve as a form of sanction.
Alternative strategies include violence, avoidance, and enduring ongoing conflict.
I. INTRODUCTION
Legal anthropologists are increasingly interested in dispute resolution processes rather than solely legal outcomes.
The transactional perspective examines actors' choices in dispute settlement, particularly when they opt for courts over informal methods like gossip.
There is limited knowledge on urban environments compared to studies of more homogeneous, stable communities (e.g., peasant villages).
II. CONTEXT AND ACCESS TO COURTS
The analysis indicates that poor, relatively uneducated residents effectively utilize criminal courts as a critical part of their dispute management strategy. This utilization reflects their ongoing attempts to navigate a complex legal system that can often be intimidating and inaccessible. Contrary to the assumption that lack of education correlates with inability to engage with legal processes, many residents display a notable level of sophistication in how they manipulate the courts to serve their interests.
Residents have become adept at recognizing and exploiting the nuances of legal procedures, often using court appearances strategically to exert social pressure or signal their seriousness in conflict situations. This manipulation might involve leveraging the threat of legal action to achieve favorable terms in negotiations, even when the actual resolutions reached by the court remain unsatisfactory. Furthermore, their frequent recourse to court illustrates a pervasive distrust in informal resolution methods, prompting reliance on formal mechanisms to validate their grievances or assert their rights in community disputes. Understanding how these residents interact with the legal system reveals the multifaceted nature of dispute management in contexts where traditional community controls are deemed insufficient.
Many residents manipulate the courts, indicating a certain degree of sophistication in their understanding of legal processes.
Courts are primarily used as a mechanism of social control where informal controls are ineffective; however, they rarely achieve resolution.
Key research questions include:
Access to courts and pre-court hearings for residents.
Factors influencing decisions to appeal disputes to court.
Court handling of these disputes.
How and when disputes are terminated, and the role courts play.
III. DEFICIENCIES IN COURT FUNCTIONING
Various factors (overcrowding, delays, limited access for the poor) affect court effectiveness in managing disputes.
Recommendations have been made for community dispute settlement centers to handle minor conflicts effectively within communities.
The appeal to courts in urban neighborhoods conforms to the hypothesis that formal mechanisms become vital when informal controls are weak.
IV. STRATEGIES OF DISPUTE MANAGEMENT
Disputes are defined as disagreements perceived as infringements of rights, escalating into a public matter.
A three-stage model of disputes includes:
Grievance: Perception of injustice.
Conflict: Confrontation between involved parties.
Dispute: Public escalation involving third parties.
Most disputes remain unresolved for years, concluding only when one disputant relocates.
Common strategies include:
Gossip: A prevalent method for managing disputes among residents.
Violence: Actual or threatened physical confrontation, contingent on the ability to identify and retaliate against the aggressor.
Third-Party Intervention: Residents often approach project managers or the police, but effective mediation is scarce.
V. COURTS AS A DISPUTE MANAGEMENT TOOL
The court system in the U.S. emphasizes punishment over interpersonal dispute resolution, with irrelevant factors excluded from considerations.
The judges often lack personal knowledge of disputants, which limits effective case management and conflict resolution.
Out of various court cases observed:
Many cases were dismissed or not processed into resolution.
Courts often fail to restore harmony, rendering them ineffective as a dispute resolution venue.
VI. CONCLUSION
Courts are often utilized but rarely succeed in settling disputes for Dover Square residents.
They serve more as tools for intimidation against adversaries or as alternatives to violence.
Conflict resolutions are more negotiations based on strength dynamics rather than legalistic adjudications.
The ability of disputants to leverage the court system can influence their negotiating power, showing a reliance on courts as a means of social leverage rather than communal harmony.