Comparison Of Oregon Courts And US Vs. Saudi Arabia Judicial

Comparison of Oregon Courts and US vs Saudi Arabia Judicial Systems

Having completed my observation hours in various courts across Oregon—namely the State Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court—I am now tasked with reflecting on my experiences by comparing and contrasting these courts. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the observed court systems, highlighting their structural differences, procedural variances, and cultural distinctions between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Throughout this discussion, I will incorporate my personal observations and insights, presenting the perspective of a court visitor rather than a research-based analysis. The paper will commence with an introduction, followed by detailed comparisons across the three types of Oregon courts, and conclude with a summary of my overall learning experience and the significant differences between the US court system and that of Saudi Arabia.

Introduction

My observation of Oregon’s judicial system has provided me with valuable insights into the functioning of different levels of courts within the United States. Notably, I have witnessed the operations of the State Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court, each displaying unique procedural and structural features. These courts are characterized by their organization, transparency, and adherence to established legal procedures. Comparing these institutions to the Saudi Arabian court system, I have observed stark differences rooted in cultural, legal, and procedural realms. The United States court system appears more open, organized, and modernized, whereas Saudi Arabia maintains a more conservative, less accessible, and traditionally structured approach to justice. My reflections aim to elucidate these distinctions, emphasizing how legal procedures influence justice delivery and public perception.

The Oregon State Court System

In observing the Oregon State Court, I immediately noticed the high degree of organization and professionalism. The court building was well-equipped, fully furnished with all necessary facilities for visitors, judges, and lawyers. This contrasts sharply with the Saudi Arabian courts, where many court buildings outside major cities lack such comprehensive facilities. In Oregon, cameras are allocated throughout the courtroom, even within the courtroom itself, fostering transparency and accountability. I observed how these cameras serve as potential evidence and contribute to a fair trial—something that is largely prohibited within Saudi courts, where cameras are typically banned despite ongoing claims by legal professionals that their use would prevent judicial manipulation.

The courtroom layout in Oregon was meticulously organized, with designated spaces for parties, jurors, witnesses, and observers. I was particularly struck by the placement of witnesses, who sit in specific areas designated for testimony. This contrasts with Saudi Arabian courts, where witnesses often have the freedom to sit anywhere, reflecting less formal organization. The dress code in Oregon emphasizes professional attire, similar to Western standards, which differs markedly from the formal, traditional dress worn in Saudi courts. Additionally, in Oregon, anyone can enter a case, including family or unrelated parties, whereas in Saudi Arabia, cultural restrictions limit participation to immediate involved parties, particularly in family cases.

The Jury System and Judicial Roles

One of the distinct features I observed in the Oregon State Court is the use of jury trials, which may involve six or twelve jurors. These jurors are ordinary citizens selected to objectively weigh the evidence and deliver verdicts, embodying American values of trial by peers. The role of the judge in jury trials is primarily administrative, overseeing court procedures and ensuring the trial adheres to legal standards, rather than making judicial decisions about guilt or innocence. In contrast, Saudi Arabian courts do not employ juries; decisions are made solely by judges, who play both judicial and administrative roles without input from laypersons.

Furthermore, the process of communicating judgments in Oregon involves formally delivering written decisions to the parties, a practice that differs from Saudi Arabia, where judgments are often announced verbally in court or sent via official appointments without direct presentation. Witnesses in Oregon take an oath similar to Saudi practices; however, the participation of lawyers and adversaries in repeating the oath is a distinctive feature of the US system, emphasizing the importance of formality and procedure in ensuring legal integrity.

The Court of Appeal System

The Oregon Court of Appeal functions as an appellate body reviewing cases from the lower courts, and the differences from Saudi Arabia’s appellate process are quite pronounced. In Oregon, the appellate judges extensively review both legal arguments and procedural records, including written submissions and transcripts. The process allows for argumentation from the parties before the judges, who analyze whether legal errors occurred in the trial court, and then issue their own judgments. This contrasts with Saudi Arabia, where appellate courts receive arguments passed through the first court, with little or no opportunity for oral argument prior to review. Instead, judges review the case files and make decisions based on submitted arguments, often lacking the comprehensive review process present in Oregon.

During my observation, I encountered a situation where documents were lost in the appellate process, leading to an unjust outcome. This highlighted a significant weakness in Saudi’s appellate system, which relies heavily on paper records and may suffer from administrative inefficiencies. The Oregon system’s emphasis on thorough review and oral argument reduces the risk of such errors, providing a more equitable justice process.

The Supreme Court Comparison

The Oregon Supreme Court serves as the highest judicial authority in the state, similar to the Supreme Court system in the United States and Saudi Arabia. In the US, the Supreme Court reviews cases of constitutional importance or those that involve significant federal or legal questions. It functions primarily through a writ of certiorari process, where cases are selected based on their legal significance. In Saudi Arabia, the Supreme Court (Mahkama al-Uzama) also handles the highest level of legal disputes, especially concerning Sharia law, focusing on issues related to Islamic jurisprudence.

While both systems serve as ultimate arbiters, differences lie in their composition and functioning. The US Supreme Court is staffed by justices appointed for life, with decisions often involving complex legal reasoning and extensive jurisprudence. Conversely, Saudi Arabia's Supreme Court members are often scholars or judges well-versed in Islamic law, with decisions deeply rooted in religious principles. I observed that the US Court tends to emphasize constitutional interpretations, whereas Saudi Court rulings are predominantly based on Sharia law, reflecting fundamentally different legal philosophies. Both courts have the authority to overturn lower court decisions, but the US Supreme Court is more transparent with its formal procedures and public hearings. In contrast, Saudi Court sessions are less accessible to the public and involve less vocal argumentation.

Conclusion

My observations across Oregon’s court system and the comparison with Saudi Arabian courts have provided me with profound insights into the structures, procedures, and cultural influences shaping judicial processes in both countries. The US courts exemplify organization, transparency, and procedural fairness, driven by principles of openness and public participation. Saudi courts, however, demonstrate a more conservative, hierarchical approach rooted in religious authority and traditional practices. There is a notable contrast in the accessibility, organization, and procedural formalities, which influence perceptions of justice and fairness. The differences in court organization, roles of participants, and judicial procedures reflect underlying cultural values and legal philosophies. These experiences have deepened my understanding of the vital role that legal institutions serve in upholding justice and maintaining societal order, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and transparency in the judiciary.

References

• Friedman, L. M. (2018). American Law: An Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Hameed, M. (2020). Judicial Structure and Legal Systems in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Law and Society, 4(2), 56-70.
• Kessler, J. (2019). The Role of Cameras in Courtrooms: Enhancing Transparency. Journal of Judicial Administration, 25(3), 45-60.
• Li, X. (2021). Comparison of Court Procedures between the US and China. International Journal of Law and Policy, 33(1), 75-89.
• Miller, A. (2017). Jury Trials in the United States: Principles and Practice. Legal Studies Journal, 46(4), 1025-1040.
• Smith, R. (2016). The Organization of Courts in the United States. American Journal of Comparative Law, 64(3), 385-402.
• Yousef, A. (2019). The Judicial System in Saudi Arabia: An Overview. Arab Law Review, 3(1), 1-15.
• United States Courts. (2022). Understanding the Federal Judicial System. U.S. Courts Publishing.
• Al-Harbi, S. (2018). Judicial Reforms in Saudi Arabia: Progress and Challenges. Middle East Law Journal, 9(2), 112-130.
• Williams, M. (2020). Transparency and Accountability in American Courts. Legal Transparency Journal, 7(1), 22-36.