The focus will be on four different assumptions (which are by no means meant to be exhaustive): the assumption that the use of technology in the courtroom diminishes human interaction, impedes an effective defence, influences decision-making and affects the legitimacy of the trial.Īs for definitions, it is important to note that many different concepts are used to describe the many different modalities of virtual justice. In doing so I hope to shed some light on the lack of evidentiary basis of many of these assumptions which clearly complicates the current discussion. The aim of this article is to highlight some of the main assumptions that seem to dominate the discussion on digitalisation of criminal justice right now. In other words, what are the potential effects of the digitalisation of criminal justice-especially from the viewpoint of the right to a fair trial? Needless to say, this is a complicated question with many angles which cannot be dealt with extensively within the scope of this contribution. The more relevant question is to what extent and how we want to allow it to replace physical face-to-face contact and adjust our traditional courtroom settings. After all, it is not the question whether technology will play a role in the criminal trials of-let’s say-2030: this is a given. Footnote 4 For this reason, it seems to be clear that the discussion on technology in the courtroom should not be about yes or no (whether or not). When it comes to technology, the sky seems to be the limit. Even more so, it is realistic to assume that technology will expand in ways we cannot even begin to imagine today. Without a doubt, technology is here to stay and it is fair to assume that the use of it will only increase further in the years to come. The fact that the COVID-19 crisis forced systems to adapt their practice and introduce digital means on a large scale within a short period of time, does not mean that technology will disappear from courthouses when COVID is ‘gone’. Criminal justice needed to continue its everyday work and closing the courts was not an option, at least not for long. The pandemic radically changed this picture within a very short period of time. However, for many different reasons-such as lack of financial or technical means or traditional views on the importance of face-to-face communication in court-this pre-COVID development was rather slow and piecemeal. In many systems these technological tools were also used for delivering expert evidence and hearing vulnerable witnesses. Footnote 3 So gradually, more and more, defendants were appearing from courts and prisons via screens. Footnote 2 Also in England and Wales, there had been a growing use of video link technology in first hearings and sentencing hearings already for many years. It was-for example-already introduced in the United States as early as the seventies of the last century. Way before the pandemic many justice systems were already using technology to facilitate communication at a distance. Footnote 1 This sudden rise of technology might create the impression that using technology for communication is a new phenomenon in the world of criminal justice. By using video links and other alternatives to face-to-face communication, criminal justice systems all over the world have tried to reduce the number of people physically present in courtrooms as much as possible. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an enormous increase in the use of technology in the courtroom.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |