Communication Type In Trial: Ethnography Communication In Indonesian Criminal Courtroom Process
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore and describe the levels of communication that occur during criminal trials, specifically focusing on the indictment, examination, prosecution, and verdict hearings. Employing a qualitative approach, this research utilizes Dell Hymes' ethnography of communication framework to analyze courtroom interactions. Data were collected through interviews with nine informants and observations of trials at the Central Jakarta District Court. The findings reveal that courtroom communication is a complex process involving multiple participants, including law enforcement officials, defendants, witnesses, victims, security personnel, family members, media, and the public. These interactions occur across all trial stages and are classified into four distinct levels of communication: (1) core communication among law enforcement, (2) triangular communication between legal professionals, (3) examination communication involving defendants and witnesses, and (4) broader courtroom communication encompassing all trial participants. The study concludes that these levels of communication are critical in shaping the outcomes of legal proceedings. The findings underscore the importance of effective communication in ensuring fairness and efficiency in trials. The study also highlights areas where improvements in judicial communication practices could enhance the overall integrity of the legal process. The study's implications suggest that enhancing communication strategies among courtroom participants could lead to more equitable and transparent legal proceedings.
Full text article
References
Agung, D. P. M. (2016). Central Jakarta PN Decision Number 777/Pid.B/2016/PN.Jkt.Pst 27 October 2016 - Pidana - Jessica Kumala Alias Jessica Kumala Wongso Alias Jess.
Aronsson, K., Jönsson, L., & Linell, P. (1987). The courtroom hearing as a middle ground: Speech accommodation by lawyers and defendants. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6(2), 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8700600202
Barkai, J. L. (1976). A new model for legal communication: Sensory experience and representational systems. [Title not provided], 74(1964).
Branovitskii, K., Renz, I., Neznamov, A., Neznamov, A., & Yarkov, V. (2018). Digital technology and civil procedure: Problems of interinfluence. Herald of the Euro-Asian Law Congress, [No volume/issue number], [Page numbers not provided]. https://doi.org/10.34076/2619-0672-2018-2-56-68
Brewer, N., Vagadia, A. N., Hope, L., & Gabbert, F. (2018). Interviewing witnesses: Eliciting coarse-grain information. Law and Human Behavior, 4(5), 458-471. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000294
Brooks, V. (2014). Interrupting the courtroom organism: Screaming bodies, material affects, and the theatre of cruelty. Law, Culture and the Humanities, [No volume/issue number], 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1743872114543767
Cahya, K. D. (2016, June 15). Attending the murder trial, Jessica accompanied by 15 lawyers. Kompas.com.
Carter, M. J., & Fuller, C. (2015). Symbolic interactionism. Sociopedia, 1, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/205684601561
Cashman, P., & Ginnivan, E. (2019). Digital justice: Online resolution of minor civil disputes and the use of digital technology in complex litigation and class actions. Macquarie Law Journal, [No volume/issue number], 39-79.
Chen, J.-M. (2015). A multimodal study on lawyer's courtroom communication management. International Conference on Management Science and Management Innovation (MSMI 2015), MSMI, 267-271. https://doi.org/10.2991/msmi-15.2015.49
Cowles, K. M., & Cowles, K. M. (2011). Communication in the courtroom. Honors College and Center for Interdisciplinary Studies.
Creswell, J. W. (2010). Research design is a qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approach. Pustaka Pelajar.
Denault, V., & Dunbar, N. (2017). Nonverbal communication in courtrooms: Scientific assessments or modern trials by ordeal? The Advocates' Quarterly.
Elbers, N. A., Van Wees, K. A. P. C., Akkermans, A. J., Cuijpers, P., & Bruinvels, D. J. (2012). Exploring lawyer-client interaction: A qualitative study of positive lawyer characteristics. Psychological Injury and Law. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-012-9120-0
Fakhri, F. (2016, October 12). Summary of Jessica's trial journey. Okezone. https://megapolitan.okezone.com/read/2016/10/12/338/1512465/rangkuman-perjalanan-sidang-jessica
Gordon, R. A., & Druckman, D. (2018). Nonverbal behaviour as communication: Approaches, issues, and research. In The Handbook of Communication Skills (4th ed.). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315436135-4
Grossman, N. (2019). Just looking: Justice as seen in Hollywood courtroom films. Law, Culture and the Humanities. https://doi.org/10.1177/1743872114564032
Hale, S. (2014). Interpreting culture: Dealing with cross-cultural issues in court interpreting. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2013.827226
Haryono, A. (2015). Communication ethnography: Concept, methods, and examples of communication. UPT UNEJ Publishing.
Howes, L. M. (2015). The communication of forensic science in the criminal justice system: A review of theory and proposed directions for research. In Science and Justice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2014.11.002
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. University of Pennsylvania.
Imron, A. (2016). The role and position of the four pillars in law enforcement, judges, police prosecutors, and advocates are linked to law enforcement in corruption cases. Jurnal Surya Kencana Satu: Dynamics of Legal and Justice Issues, 6(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.32493/jdmhkdmhk.v6i1.340
Jenks, D., & Fuller, J. R. (2020). Comparative criminal justice systems. In Global Crime and Justice. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315439563-18
Kumajas, M. N. (2015). The position of victim witnesses in proving criminal cases. Lex et Societatis, III(5), 95-102.
Leung, J. H. C. (2012). Judicial discourse in Cantonese courtrooms in postcolonial Hong Kong: The judge as a godfather, scholar, educator, and scolding parent. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v19i2.239
Limani, B., Majlichi, D., Aslan, M., Kikalishvili, S., & Brown, D. (2024). Western Balkans: It's complicated an inter-ethnic communication interdisciplinary examination. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 24(1), 132-143. https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v24i1.324
Littlejohn, S., & Foss, K. A. (2009). Encyclopedia of communication theory. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412959384
M. Scheb II, J., & Sharma, H. (2015). An introduction to the American legal system. In Wolters Kluwer.
Mccaul, K. (2016). Understanding courtroom communication through cultural scripts. In Exploring Courtroom Discourse: The Language of Power and Control.
Mcintyre, J., Olijnyk, A., & Pender, K. (2020). Civil courts and COVID-19: Challenges and opportunities in Australia. Alternative Law Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X20956787
Mulyana, D. (2013). Communication science: An introduction. PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Mulyana, D. (2017). Qualitative research methods: New paradigms of communication science and other social sciences. PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Negi, C. (2016). Virtual courtrooms: Concept & overview. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2765766
Nugroho, D. R., & Suteki, S. (2020). Building a legal culture of virtual trials (Study on the development of criminal trials via teleconference). Journal of Indonesia Legal Development, 2(3), 291-304. https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v2i3.291-304
Okuneva, I. O. (2022). Legal discourse: Rhetorical and psychological persuasive techniques in Russian and English courtroom discourse. RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. Series Psychology. Pedagogics. Education. https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6398-2022-3-121-137
Otu, N. (2015). Decoding nonverbal communication in law enforcement. Salus Journal, 3(2), 1-16.
Philp, G. (2022). Listening and responding to the future of virtual court: A report on the future of virtual courts in Canada. Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.
Pratiwi, P. S., & Sohuturon, M. (2016, October 27). Drama nine months of Jessica's case. CNN Indonesia. https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20161027084033-12-168312/drama-sembilan-bulan-kasus-jessica
Pratiwi, P. S., & Sohuturon, M. (2016, October 27). Drama nine months of Jessica's case. CNN Indonesia. https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20161027084033-12-168312/drama-sembilan-bulan-kasus-jessica
Pratiwi, P. S. (2016, September 28). Jessica gives testimony at the cyanide coffee case trial today. CNN Indonesia. https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20160928081400-12-161680/jessica-beri-keterangan-di-sidang-kasus-kopi-sianida-hari-ini
Putera, A. D. (2016, October 27). Jessica was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Kompas.com. https://megapolitan.kompas.com/read/2016/10/27/16551631/jessica.divonis.hukuman.20.tahun.penjara?page=all
Roach Anleu, S., & Mack, K. (2015). Performing authority: Communicating judicial decisions in lower criminal courts. Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 1052-1069. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783313495765
Rowden, E., & Wallace, A. (2018). Performing expertise: The design of audiovisual links and the construction of the remote expert witness in court. Social & Legal Studies, 28, 698-718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663918802991
Sari, R. F. (2018). Looking at the Qlue Jakarta Smart City application: The dynamics of audience transformation in the perspective of public space. Journal of Press Research and Development Communication. https://doi.org/10.46426/jp2kp.v22i2.85
Saville-Troike, M. (2008). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (3rd ed.). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758373
Schinkel, M. (2014). Punishment as moral communication: The experiences of long-term prisoners. Punishment and Society, 16(5), 578-597. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474514548789
Sugiyono. (2015). Quantitative, qualitative, and R&D research methods. Alfabeta.
Widodo, A. (2019). Model of law enforcement communication in the courtroom at the Central Jakarta District Court. Journal of Communication Research, 22(2), 139-154. https://doi.org/10.20422/jpk.v22i2.660
Widodo, A. (2020). Examination Communication model in the trial of the evidentiary agenda of cases in court. Journal of Communication. https://doi.org/10.24912/jk.v12i2.8447
Widodo, A. (2022). The defendant's dramaticism in the courtroom. Journal of Communication Sciences, 19(1), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.24002/jik.v19i1.3600
Widodo, A., Pribadi, S., Ode, W., Nuhaliza, S., Akbar, M. R., Ilmu, F., Universitas, K., Jakarta, B., Hukum, F., Bhayangkara, U., & Raya, J. (2024). Virtual court communication implementation: Studies on the implementation of online criminal trials in courts. Pena Justisia: Media Communication and Studies, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.31941/pj.v22i2.3516
Wilson, T. (2019). Courtroom psychology during criminal trials and its therapeutic role on victims and offenders.
Wilson, T. C. (2009). Understanding the courts. Juvenile Court Judges Journal, 21, 39-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6988.1970.tb00976.x
Wodak, R. (1980). Discourse analysis and courtroom interaction. Discourse Processes, 3(4), 369-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538009544498
Authors
Copyright (c) 2024 Aan Widodo (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This journal provides immediate and free open access to all its content and is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This means readers are permitted to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as proper attribution is given. This policy is consistent with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.