This particular case takes place in the judicial courtroom of the Honourable Judge Judy. This specific case was concerned with the plaintiff; Karen Anne Davenport and the defendant; Kelly Filkins. The plaintiff; Karen Anne Davenport claims that she had purchased two cell phones off of the website, ‘eBay’, and did not receive her items; what she did receive was two photos of the cell phones and not the actual items itself. The defendant claims that she had stated on the advertisement that it was the auction of two photos and not the cell phones themselves.
In a judicial courtroom such as this one it is evident that the judge holds the most authority, she is placed on a podium; higher from all parties as well as the general audience and is placed behind the bailiff towards the centre of the room, to present all the attention to the judge. The judge is also greeted on their arrival into the room by a standing ovation and sits before everyone is seated, as a gesture of respect/authority. On another level, the two parties are placed beside one another, yet directly opposite, to illustrate a dispute between the two parties. This type of courtroom clearly illustrates the inequalities among the judge and the disputing parties, as well as the general audience.
The judge’s final ruling on the case was in favour of the plaintiff, on the grounds that the defendant had included the physical characteristics of the phones in the description pertained in the advertisement. Come the end of the case, the judge did make the just and righteous decision. The judge’s conclusion was clearly impartial to both parties and was based on standard legal principles, rather than personal preference or political influence. In addition, the judge’s role was completely arbitrary to the case, acting as a mediator between the two parties, dependant on the evidence in which was available.
In contrast to law and justice theories, I would apply Max Weber’s theory to support my position on the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document