Courts function to give the public the opportunity to present themselves whether to prosecute or defend themselves in cases of disputes against them. It is known to all that a court is the place where disputes can be resolved using the right and proper procedures. In criminal court there is the luxury of going through a tedious trial of violating a law. Once you have been arrested and have to go to court because of the arrest, you now have a criminal case against you. The court is also the place where a fair, impartial and impartial trial can take place, so that it does not cause any disadvantage to any of the parties involved in the dispute. Parties are given the option to represent themselves or choose to have legal representation, which many prefer. With this classroom observation document I will form two classroom articles and knowledge to show the importance they play within the courts today. First, the local legal culture, in the concept of "judicial culture", is based on dimensions of solidarity and sociability, the intersections of which create four cultures with associated case management types: hierarchical culture (rules-oriented case management) ; network culture (judicial consensus); autonomous culture (self-management); and community (flexible case management). The second is about court guidelines and sentencing structure, how it works, and why several areas emerge that differ from Kalamazoo and southwest Michigan as a hole. In particular, Gallas, himself a former court administrator, thinks that what judges and administrators do within the courts is not sufficient to explain differences in case treatment; as he states, "local legal culture pervades the practice of law and the making of c...... middle of paper......rounding the needs of individual offenders and management and organizational concerns Although the reliance on court actors is theorized to be uniform across jurisdictions, the relative emphasis and subjective interpretation of these considerations is likely to vary across judicial communities (Ulmer and Johnson, 2004). . Their interpretation is rooted in the culture of the local judicial community, organizational contexts and politics" that vary between courts (Kramer and Ulmer, 2002: 903). From this perspective, judicial deviations can be understood as the result of the complex interaction between formally rational guideline recommendations and substantively rational sentencing concerns, based on different interpretations of different focal concerns in judicial communities.