Kangaroo court

Last updated

Kangaroo court is an informal pejorative term for a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides, and is typically convened ad hoc. [1] A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion. The term is also used for a court held by a legitimate judicial authority, but which intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations (compare show trial). [2]

Contents

A kangaroo court could also develop when the structure and operation of the forum result in an inferior brand of adjudication. A common example of this is when institutional disputants ("repeat players") have excessive and unfair structural advantages over individual disputants ("one-shot players"). [3]

Etymology

The term is known to have been used in the United States in 1841: an article in The Daily Picayune, New Orleans quotes the Concordia Intelligencer reporting several lynchings "upon various charges instituted by the Kangaroo court", asking "Don't comprehend: What is a Kangaroo court?" [4] The term is not attested to have been used in Australia, native land of the kangaroo, or elsewhere before then. [5]

The term kangaroo court may have originated in Britain. In the late 1700s, British courts began sentencing people convicted of various crimes to penal transportation to Australia. In the 1800s this was sometimes referred to as the "Kangaroo Jump". It's possible that those sentenced to transportation may have protested that they had been convicted and sentenced by a kangaroo court. Some sources suggest that the term may have been popularized during the California Gold Rush of 1849 to which many thousands of Australians flocked. In consequence of the Australian miners' presence, it may have come about as a description of the hastily carried-out proceedings used to deal with the issue of claim-jumping miners. [5] The derivation of the term is not known, although there has been speculation. It could be from the notion of justice proceeding "by leaps", like a kangaroo [6] – in other words, "jumping over" (intentionally ignoring) evidence that would be in favour of the defendant. An alternative suggestion is that, as these courts are often convened quickly to deal with an immediate issue, they are called kangaroo courts since they have "jumped up" out of nowhere, like a kangaroo. Another possibility is that the phrase could refer to the pouch of a kangaroo, meaning the court is in someone's pocket. [7] [8] [9]

Etymologist Philologos suggests that the term arose "because a place named Kangaroo sounded comical to its hearers, just as place names like Kalamazoo , and Booger Hole , and Okeefenokee Swamp , strike us as comical." [10]

The term is still in common use in the Anglosphere. [11] [12]

As informal proceedings in sport

The term is sometimes used without any negative connotation. For example, many Major League Baseball and Minor League Baseball teams have a kangaroo court to punish players for errors on the field, being late for a game or practice, not wearing proper attire to road games, or having a messy locker in the clubhouse. Fines are allotted, and at the end of the year, the money collected is given to charity or used for a team party at the end of the season. [13]

A notable example includes in 2008, Mariano Rivera, then closer for the New York Yankees, was fined by his teammates after Rivera assisted division rival Roy Halladay in developing Halladay's cut fastball, Rivera's signature pitch.

Historical examples

Some examples of quasi-judicial proceedings that could be described as kangaroo courts are:

See also

Related Research Articles

In United States law, an Alford plea, also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia, an Alford guilty plea, and the Alford doctrine, is a guilty plea in criminal court, whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence, but accepts imposition of a sentence. This plea is allowed even if the evidence to be presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This can be caused by circumstantial evidence and testimony favoring the prosecution, and difficulty finding evidence and witnesses that would aid the defense.

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law – in civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. The double jeopardy protection in criminal prosecutions bars only an identical prosecution for the same offence; however, a different offence may be charged on identical evidence at a second trial. Res judicata protection is stronger – it precludes any causes of action or claims that arise from a previously litigated subject matter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury trial</span> Type of legal trial

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuremberg trials</span> Series of military trials at the end of World War II

The Nuremberg trials were held by the Allies against representatives of the defeated Nazi Germany for plotting and carrying out invasions of other countries across Europe and atrocities against their citizens in World War II.

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.

In law, a plea is a defendant's response to a criminal charge. A defendant may plead guilty or not guilty. Depending on jurisdiction, additional pleas may be available, including nolo contendere, no case to answer, or an Alford plea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence, make findings of fact, and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

In law, a conviction is the determination by a court of law that a defendant is guilty of a crime. A conviction may follow a guilty plea that is accepted by the court, a jury trial in which a verdict of guilty is delivered, or a trial by judge in which the defendant is found guilty.

Trial in absentia is a criminal proceeding in a court of law in which the person being tried is not present. In absentia is Latin for "in (the) absence". Its interpretation varies by jurisdiction and legal system.

A hung jury, also called a deadlocked jury, is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority. A hung jury may result in the case being tried again.

A suspended sentence is a sentence on conviction for a criminal offence, the serving of which the court orders to be deferred in order to allow the defendant to perform a period of probation. If the defendant does not break the law during that period and fulfills the particular conditions of the probation, the sentence is usually considered fulfilled. If the defendant commits another offence or breaks the terms of probation, the court can order the sentence to be served, in addition to any sentence for the new offence.

Capital murder refers to a category of murder in some parts of the US for which the perpetrator is eligible for the death penalty. In its original sense, capital murder was a statutory offence of aggravated murder in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, which was later adopted as a legal provision to define certain forms of aggravated murder in the United States. Some jurisdictions that provide for death as a possible punishment for murder, such as California, do not have a specific statute creating or defining a crime known as capital murder; instead, death is one of the possible sentences for certain kinds of murder. In these cases, "capital murder" is not a phrase used in the legal system but may still be used by others such as the media.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Magistrates' court (England and Wales)</span> Lower court in England and Wales

In England and Wales, a magistrates' court is a lower court which hears matters relating to summary offences and some triable either-way matters. Some civil law issues are also decided here, notably family proceedings. In 2010, there were 320 magistrates' courts in England and Wales; by 2020, a decade later, 164 of those had closed. The jurisdiction of magistrates' courts and rules governing them are set out in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal justice system of Japan</span>

Within the criminal justice system of Japan, there exist three basic features that characterize its operations. First, the institutions—police, government prosecutors' offices, courts, and correctional organs—maintain close and cooperative relations with each other, consulting frequently on how best to accomplish the shared goals of limiting and controlling crime. Second, citizens are encouraged to assist in maintaining public order, and they participate extensively in crime prevention campaigns, apprehension of suspects, and offender rehabilitation programs. Finally, officials who administer criminal justice are allowed considerable discretion in dealing with offenders.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Israel</span> Part of the article of the series of government of Israel

The judicial system of Israel consists of secular courts and religious courts. The law courts constitute a separate and independent unit of Israel's Ministry of Justice. The system is headed by the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice.

A system for trial by jury was first introduced in 1923 under Prime Minister Katō Tomosaburō's administration. Although the system generated relatively high acquittal rates, it was rarely used, in part because it required defendants to give up their rights to appeal the factual determinations made. The system lapsed by the end of World War II. In 2009, as a part of a larger judicial reform project, laws came into force to introduce citizen participation in certain criminal trials by introducing lay judges. Lay judges comprise the majority of the judicial panel. They do not form a jury separate from the judges, as in a common law system, but participate in the trial as inquisitorial judges next to professional judges in accordance with the civil law legal tradition – similar to the French cour d'assises – who actively analyze and investigate evidence presented by the defense and prosecution.

In France, a cour d'assises, or Court of Assizes or Assize Court, is a criminal trial court with original and appellate limited jurisdiction to hear cases involving defendants accused of felonies, meaning crimes as defined in French law. It is the only French court that uses a jury trial.

A court show is a broadcast programming genre comprising legal dramas and reality legal programming. Court shows present content mainly in the form of legal hearings between plaintiffs and defendants, presided over in one of two formats: scripted/improvised with an actor portraying a judge; or, an arbitration-based reality format with the case handled by an adjudicator who was formerly a judge or attorney.

A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.

The legal system in the United Arab Emirates is based on civil law, and Sharia law in the personal status matters of Muslims and blood money compensation. Personal status matters of non-Muslims are based on civil law. The UAE constitution established a federal court system and allows all emirates to establish local courts systems. The emirates of Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Ras Al Khaimah have local court systems, while other emirates follow the federal court system. Some financial free trade zones in Abu Dhabi and Dubai have their own legal and court systems based on English common law; local businesses in both emirates are allowed to opt-in to the jurisdiction of common law courts for business contracts.

References

  1. Scharf, Michael P. (2006). "The United States and the International Criminal Court: A Recommendation for the Bush Administration". ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law. 2: 385.
  2. "Kangaroo court". Wex . Cornell Law School. Archived from the original on August 23, 2023. Retrieved July 6, 2020.
  3. Stempel, Jeffrey W. (December 30, 2007). "Keeping Arbitrations from Becoming Kangaroo Courts". Nevada Law Review. 8. UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law Legal Studies: 251. Research Paper 08-05. Archived from the original on August 23, 2023. Retrieved June 30, 2023.
  4. "What is a Kangaroo court, neighbor?". The Daily Picayune . August 24, 1841. p. 2 via Newspapers.com.
  5. 1 2 Adams, Cecil (January 4, 1985). "What's the origin of "kangaroo court"? Is "kangaroo" aborigine for "I don't know"?". The Straight Dope . Archived from the original on August 23, 2023. Retrieved October 1, 2012.
  6. "Minor league baseball in this court most anything goes". The [Norwich] Bulletin. Archived from the original on April 11, 2013.
  7. "Definition of kangaroo court". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved September 2, 2020.
  8. "Kangaroo court". Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved September 2, 2020.
  9. Mohr, Melissa (October 24, 2019). "'Kangaroo court' has a peculiarly American past". Christian Science Monitor . ISSN   0882-7729. Archived from the original on October 1, 2020. Retrieved September 2, 2020.
  10. Philologos (June 17, 2020). "The origins of the phrase "kangaroo court" have been hiding in plain sight". Mosaic . Retrieved June 17, 2020.
  11. Lehman, Jeffrey; Phelps, Shirelle (2005). West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Vol. 1 (2 ed.). Detroit: Thomson/Gale. p. 57. ISBN   9780787663742.
  12. Martin, Sarah (November 25, 2021). "Morrison accuses critics of wanting 'kangaroo court' as Liberal MP crosses floor over integrity bill". The Guardian Australia. Archived from the original on December 2, 2021. Retrieved December 2, 2021. I'm not going to have a kangaroo court taken into this parliament.
  13. Bouton, Jim (1990). Ball Four (2nd ed.). Wiley. ISBN   0-02-030665-2.
  14. Epstein, Catherine (2015). Nazi Germany: Confronting the Myths. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 59, 191. ISBN   978-1-118-29478-9.
  15. Dresser, Amos (1836). The narrative of Amos Dresser : With Stone's letters from Natchez, an obituary notice of the writer, and two letters from Tallahassee, relating to the treatment of slaves. New-York, NY: American Anti-Slavery Society. — Link is to a "reprinting". 1836. Archived from the original on August 23, 2023. Retrieved July 30, 2021. in the collection Slave Rebels, Abolitionists, and Southern Courts
  16. 1 2 Schlund-Vials, C.J. (2012). War, Genocide and Justice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN   978-0-8166-7096-3. Archived from the original on June 30, 2023. Retrieved June 30, 2023.
  17. Chandler, David (2008). "Cambodia deals with its past: Collective memory, demonisation, and induced amnesia". Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions. 9 (2–3): 355–369. doi:10.1080/14690760802094933. S2CID   143128754.
  18. Plokhy, S. (2020). Chernobyl: The History of a Nuclear Catastrophe. Basic Books.

Further reading