Why don't American courts have docks?

[alphaboi867]

In British (or at least English) courtrooms the defendant sits apart from counsel in a special dock, but in American courtrooms s/he sits at the same table as the defence counsel. Presumably American court procedure was the same as English procedure (although simplified) during the Colonial era? When/how/why did this practice end in the US? Don’t most Commonwealth countries still follow English courtroom layouts?

[ChrisBooth12]

I would assume because the founding fathers wanted to be as differnt as England as possible.

[chrisk]

@ChrisBooth12

I would assume because the founding fathers wanted to be as differnt as England as possible.

Hmm… okay then, for the sake of argument, why didn’t they draft a civil law code? I realize that they probably weren’t wild about being too like France either, but still, that would have been differnt from England.

Obviously they imitated England in some ways, and not in others. I suppose it’s possible that we can’t sort out the whys and wherefores at this point.

[Skipper_Too]

My W.A.G. would be the Ideal of the US court system that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, put the defendant in a make shif cell or dock in the middle of the court room and to the Jury he will look guilty, hey he is already behind bars he must of done it.

[Richard_Parker]

Here you go.

@Steven Shepard

Though the dock survived the Atlantic crossing, and lingered in the courthouses of the eastern seaboard well into the twentieth century, by the end of the nineteenth century most American courts had ceased to confine the criminal defendant during trial. Today, the American criminal defendant sits with his lawyer at a counsel table positioned to reflect equal status with the prosecution’s table…The dock disappeared in part because the earliest American trials were held in taverns, meetinghouses, town halls, and private homes, which lacked the elaborate English furniture, and in part, perhaps, because an emerging egalitarian spirit rebelled at the idea of denying the defendant the autonomy to choose his own seat. Breaking with the English custom, American courts permitted the criminal defendant first to leave the dock, and then to pass over the bar and sit at the lawyers’ tables.

[Baron_Greenback]

A supplementary question - what do US courts do with potentially violent defendants?

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

@Struan

A supplementary question - what do US courts do with potentially violent defendants?

Bolts & shackles, my lad.

He won’t break free, unless he is Houdini.

[Queen_Bruin]

@Struan

A supplementary question - what do US courts do with potentially violent defendants?

We have a nasty case in my local Superior courthouse. The defendants are behind a glass enclosure and a number of sheriffs are posted to the courtroom. I have no idea if the enclosure is next to counsel or off to the side by the breach. ETA - it’s not that far from the breach to the table anyways.

The last time these guys were in court, a fight broke out in the parking lot after a spectator threw up a gang sign to the defendants. One of the defendants is representing himself and made a number of threats to the bailiffs.

[IAmNotSpartacus]

@Struan

A supplementary question - what do US courts do with potentially violent defendants?

Closed circuit television would be a more drastic option

[anson2995]

Aside from the cases of potentially violent prisoners, what’s the advantage of making them sit separately from their legal advisors? In an American court, the defendant can confer with his attorney during the course of testimony, to say, for example, that a witnesses testimony was incorrect, or to answer questions the attorney might have. Is that one of the intentions in the UK system, to keep them from communicating during the trial?