Read on Twitter
With courts basically shut down, let's talk about some of the reasons people often give me to argue that court / justice 
has to be done in person or face to face (F2F)
has to be done in person or face to face (F2F)
Some say F2F is needed so "people can tell their story"
Incomprehensible forms
Time off work to line up & file docs
Docs bounced for errors
Only 2% get to trial
Wait 1-2 yrs
> $$,$$$
Hearing gets bumped
Outmaneuvered @ trial on procedure by opponent
Not the best story.
is needed so "people can tell their story"Incomprehensible forms
Time off work to line up & file docs
Docs bounced for errors
Only 2% get to trial
Wait 1-2 yrs
> $$,$$$
Hearing gets bumped
Outmaneuvered @ trial on procedure by opponent
Not the best story.
Some say F2F is needed because of the emotional aspects of disputes - like family law
Are procedurally complex adversarial courtroom environments designed to serve emotionally charged disputants? How about power imbalances? Intimate partner violence?
We can design better.
is needed because of the emotional aspects of disputes - like family lawAre procedurally complex adversarial courtroom environments designed to serve emotionally charged disputants? How about power imbalances? Intimate partner violence?
We can design better.
Some say F2F is needed for the "gravity" or "solemnity," "symbolism" etc.
The pageantry is flat out alienating for many.
There is surely more than one way to address the gravity objective. E.g. understandable processes, affordability, faster outcomes, effective enforcement
is needed for the "gravity" or "solemnity," "symbolism" etc. The pageantry is flat out alienating for many.
There is surely more than one way to address the gravity objective. E.g. understandable processes, affordability, faster outcomes, effective enforcement
Some say F2F is necessary for "open justice"
1st: Yikes! Courts compel disclosure of tons of sensitive personal info for little value. Things they'd chastise other branches of gov't for disclosing.
2nd: There are many ways to support openness that are far superior & safer.
is necessary for "open justice"1st: Yikes! Courts compel disclosure of tons of sensitive personal info for little value. Things they'd chastise other branches of gov't for disclosing.
2nd: There are many ways to support openness that are far superior & safer.
Some say F2F is necessary to "assess the credibility" of witnesses based on demeanour.
(200+) Empirical studies indicate humans hit about 54% accuracy in detecting lies in others. Experts hit 55%.
We'd do just as well flipping a coin.
is necessary to "assess the credibility" of witnesses based on demeanour. (200+) Empirical studies indicate humans hit about 54% accuracy in detecting lies in others. Experts hit 55%.
We'd do just as well flipping a coin.
Some say F2F is necessary b/c issues are complex.
Imagine answering a complex law school exam Q
- orally, time-limited w/out add'l resources
VS
- in writing, wherever you want, over a period of several days, w/ add'l resources
Which answer wld score highest for most ppl?
is necessary b/c issues are complex. Imagine answering a complex law school exam Q
- orally, time-limited w/out add'l resources
VS
- in writing, wherever you want, over a period of several days, w/ add'l resources
Which answer wld score highest for most ppl?
I'm not saying there are no advantages to F2F. That's not the point. Right now it's not up for debate.
Post-COVID, I hope we mk rational, evidence-based assessments of how to improve justice.
Emphasize fairness, access & outcomes over grandiosity.
Unshackle from history
. That's not the point. Right now it's not up for debate. Post-COVID, I hope we mk rational, evidence-based assessments of how to improve justice.
Emphasize fairness, access & outcomes over grandiosity.
Unshackle
from history
