Jump to content

Draft:Justice Technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Justice technology refers to the systematic application of digital tools, technological innovations, and computational methods to improve efficiency, accessibility, and fairness in legal processes.[1] [2] This concept encompasses both the technological infrastructure and the methodological frameworks used to enhance legal processes, judicial operations, and access to justice.[3] While it addresses systemic barriers to legal access, especially for low-income and marginalized communities,[4][5] critics argue that reliance on such technologies may deepen existing inequalities, including the digital divide and algorithmic bias.[6]

Definition and Scope

[edit]

Justice technology (or justice tech) refers to the use of technology to make justice more equitable, accessible, and responsive.[7] The term encompasses technological innovations aimed at reducing barriers to legal services and streamlining processes through digital platforms, automation, and data-driven tools,[8] such as online dispute resolution platforms, case management systems, mobile applications, electronic case filing systems,[9] and AI applications.[10]

Justice technology facilitates direct interaction with legal systems and provides digital tools for those without legal representation.[11] [12] This technology is especially beneficial for those unable to afford traditional legal services, offering an alternative means to engage with the law and access support.[13][14] Beyond individual assistance, the concept includes both the technological infrastructure—such as online platforms and digital interfaces—and the methodological frameworks that streamline legal and judicial operations and broaden access to justice.[15]

Scholars categorize justice technology into three frameworks: Technological Justice (promoting fairness and equality),[16] Digital Justice (enhancing access to legal services and judicial processes),[17] and Smart Justice (integrating artificial intelligence and data analytics).[18] However, unlike legal technology, justice technology focuses on legal-specific needs, rather than general business functions.[19]

The term “justice technology” combines “justice,” from the Latin justitia, and “technology,” from the Greek technē. The implementation of technology in the justice sector has evolved over time,[20] with early tools such as electronic filing systems (e-filing) emerging in the 1990s.[21] These systems digitized the submission of court documents, reducing paperwork and procedural delays.[21] The adoption of e-filing marked a significant shift toward automating judicial workflows, laying the groundwork for broader applications of technology in legal systems.

Specifically, the term “justice technology” emerged in the early 2000s as a subset of broader legal and civic tech innovations, focusing on improving access to justice through digital solutions.[22] [23] But, key milestones comes up with the rise of online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms in the 2010s, which enabled remote mediation and arbitration;[24] and the integration of artificial intelligence in the 2020s for tasks like legal research and predictive analytics.[25]

The COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2023) also accelerated adoption as courts and legal services shifted to remote operations, highlighting the need for scalable digital tools.[26] Recent developments in justice technology further include the application of artificial intelligence for case analysis[27] and blockchain for secure evidence handling.[28] [29]

Technologies and Methodologies

[edit]

Justice technology encompasses a range of technologies and methodologies, classified by their functions, their implementation context within the justice system, and the developmental philosophies guiding their design, such as automation or user-centered accessibility.[30] Among them, some justice technology initiatives involve collaboration with affected communities to address specific barriers.[31][32]

Access to Justice Technologies

[edit]

Over 5 billion people worldwide lack access to justice,[33] with 92% of Americans any or enough support for their civil legal problems.[34] While at least 75% of US civil cases involve unrepresented parties, legal aid organizations report being unable to assist a significant portion of those seeking help due to resource limitations.[35] Data from the U.S. federal courts also indicate that between 2000 and 2019, unrepresented civil litigants faced significant hurdles, with trends suggesting unfavorable outcomes in a majority of cases.[36] Access to justice technologies are solutions that help the public access legal information and support to fill this gap. These include online legal information portals, self-help platforms, document automation tools, and AI chatbots (e.g., virtual legal assistants) that provide low-cost guidance to unrepresented litigants.[37] Methodologies like human-centered design prioritize user needs through iterative testing and community partnerships,[38] ensuring tools address barriers faced by marginalized groups.[39] This ensures solutions are not only informed by but actively co-created with the communities they aim to serve. Studies indicate these technologies can reduce legal service costs and increase legal literacy, particularly benefiting low and middle-income groups.[40]

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

[edit]

ADR technologies enable remote mediation, arbitration, and automated negotiation, reducing costs and delays in resolving civil disputes, outside traditional court settings.[41][23] These systems often employ data-driven methodologies,[42] using analytics to optimize workflows and predict outcomes.[25] Some jurisdictions report reduced court backlogs following ADR technology implementation.[43] These systems have also demonstrated reduced time and cost in dispute resolution compared to traditional court proceedings, particularly in cross-jurisdictional disputes.[44]

Efficiency Enhancing Systems

[edit]

Courts employ efficiency-enhancing technologies including electronic filing, automated case management, and digital document handling systems.[45] Data-driven methodologies in these systems have shown reduced administrative costs and improved case processing times,[46] Data-Driven Prosecution: Why It Matters & How to Implement It,[47] It is reported that Spain’s Ministry of Justice is prioritising data-driven decision-making within the justice system.[48] though results vary by jurisdiction.[49] However, justice-focused development frameworks emphasize “bias audits and anti-oppression strategies”[50] to mitigate risks of algorithmic discrimination.[51]

Overarching Methodological Framework

[edit]

Across all tech types, this ensures technologies respect and promote human rights, focusing on privacy, non-discrimination, and inclusivity. This approach guides justice technology implementations, emphasizing privacy protection and inclusive access.[52] Technologies like blockchain-based evidence systems and encrypted filing portals align with human-rights methodologies, prioritizing transparency, privacy, and accessibility.[21] The Justice Technology Association is one of several organizations that support the development and adoption of justice technology tools.[53] However, despite having potential for democratizing legal services, scholars report persisting challenges, including digital literacy barriers and algorithmic bias concerns.[54]

Criticisms and Challenges

[edit]

Justice technology' has been met with various criticisms and challenges, particularly concerning:

Digital Divide

[edit]

Justice tech risks excluding individuals who lack reliable internet access or digital literacy, thus limiting their ability to utilize online legal tools. This exacerbates the digital divide, with studies showing that 25% of low-income Americans lack broadband access. [55]

Algorithmic Bias

[edit]

AI applications within the legal system might perpetuate existing biases. For instance, AI chatbots designed for legal advice might not serve all demographics equally if trained on non-diverse data sets, potentially providing inaccurate guidance to marginalized groups. [37]

Privacy and Data Security

[edit]

Centralized platforms used for electronic case filing or self-help legal tools collect sensitive personal data. Data breaches in these systems could disproportionately impact low-income litigants who depend on these services for access to justice. [56]

Transparency and Due Process

[edit]

The use of opaque algorithms in Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platforms might prioritize efficiency at the expense of fairness, potentially undermining due process.[57] Similarly, automated systems for determining legal aid eligibility can use rigid criteria that exclude vulnerable populations.[58]

Unintended Consequences for Marginalized Communities

[edit]

Research shows that low-income individuals, who are often unrepresented in civil cases like evictions and debt collection, face significant barriers in navigating virtual court systems. This includes challenges with digital literacy, lack of access to reliable internet, and insufficient technological resources. [59]

Accordingly, justice technology could perpetuate or amplify existing inequalities in access to justice, particularly if digital literacy and accessibility barriers are not adequately addressed. [59] Studies suggest that the effectiveness of justice technology varies depending on design and implementation, with potential disparities in how different communities access these tools.[60]

[edit]

Recent trends in justice technology include the integration of artificial intelligence in legal processes, the adoption of blockchain for secure legal records, the expansion of virtual courtrooms, mobile justice applications, and the use of smart contracts for digital legal agreements.

See Also

[edit]

● Legal Technology ● Design Justice ● Cyberjustice ● Access to justice ● Online Dispute Resolution

  1. ^ Susskind, R. (2019). Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198838364.001.0001. ISBN 978-0198838364.
  2. ^ Katsh, E.; Rabinovich-Einy, O. (2017). Digital Justice: Technology and the Internet of Disputes. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190464585.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-046458-5.
  3. ^ Smith, R. (2019). Digital Delivery of Legal Services to People on Low Incomes (Report). The Legal Education Foundation. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  4. ^ "European Judicial Systems: Use of Information Technology in Courts". European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice. 2021. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  5. ^ "WJP Rule of Law Index 2024" (PDF). World Justice Project. 2024. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  6. ^ Omale, S. U. (2020). "The Algorithmic Divide and Equality in the Age of Artificial Intelligence". Florida Law Review. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  7. ^ "What is Justice Tech?". Justice Technology Association. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  8. ^ Smith, R. (2019). Digital Delivery of Legal Services to People on Low Incomes (Report). The Legal Education Foundation. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  9. ^ Just Technology: Emergent Technologies and the Justice System… And What the Public Thinks About It (PDF) (Report). Center for Justice Innovation. 2019. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  10. ^ Reiling, D. (2020). "Courts and Artificial Intelligence". International Journal for Court Administration. 11 (2): 1–10. doi:10.18352/ijca.343 (inactive 12 March 2025).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of March 2025 (link)
  11. ^ Susskind, R. (2019). Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198838364.001.0001. ISBN 978-0198838364.
  12. ^ Katsh, E.; Rabinovich-Einy, O. (2017). Digital Justice: Technology and the Internet of Disputes. Oxford University Press.
  13. ^ "How Justice Tech is Taking a Human-Centered Approach to Access to Justice Challenges". Thomson Reuters. 9 August 2022. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  14. ^ "What is Justice Tech?". Village Capital. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  15. ^ Smith, R. (2019). Digital Delivery of Legal Services to People on Low Incomes (Report). The Legal Education Foundation. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  16. ^ Meikle, A. (2016). Technology Justice: A Call to Action. Practical Action Publishing.
  17. ^ European Ethical Charter on the Use of AI in Judicial Systems (Report). European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). 2019. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  18. ^ Sourdin, T. (2021). "Justice and Technological Innovation". Current Issues in Criminal Justice. 33 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1080/10345329.2020.1859968.
  19. ^ "Legal Technology is Changing the World. Get With It!". BigFormula.com. 26 June 2023. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  20. ^ Holt, Thomas J. (2013). "Technology and the Criminal Justice System". Oxford Bibliographies Online, Criminology. doi:10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0173.
  21. ^ a b c "Ethical Charter on AI in Judicial Systems". European Commission. 2018. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  22. ^ Cabral, J. E. (2012). "Using Technology to Enhance Access to Justice" (PDF). Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. 26 (1): 241–324.
  23. ^ a b Katsh, Ethan (2017). Digital Justice. Oxford University Press.
  24. ^ "Digital Government in a Global Pandemic" (PDF). OECD. 2020. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  25. ^ a b Susskind, Richard (2019). Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford University Press.
  26. ^ "The Justice Gap". Legal Services Corporation. 2022. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  27. ^ Posadas, Arnaldo; Vásquez Jordán, Darinka (2020). Posadas, Arnaldo; Vásquez Jordán, Darinka (eds.). Digital Technologies for Better Justice: A Toolkit for Action (Report). doi:10.18235/0002297.
  28. ^ Sengupta, Pamela. "Revolutionizing Justice - How Technology Can Transform Legacy Systems in the Criminal Justice Sector". techUK. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  29. ^ Reiling, D. (2020). "Courts and Artificial Intelligence". International Journal for Court Administration. 11 (2): 1–10. doi:10.18352/ijca.343 (inactive 12 March 2025).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of March 2025 (link)
  30. ^ Susskind, Richard (2019). Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198838364.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-883836-4.
  31. ^ "10 Principles for Humane Justice Technology". Innovating Justice. 26 February 2019. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  32. ^ "Reykjavík: Digital Transformation Driven by Citizens' Participation and Human Rights Policies". Cities for Digital Rights. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  33. ^ "The rule of law has declined globally for the 7th year in a row". World Justice Project. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  34. ^ The 2022 Justice Gap Study (Report). The Legal Services Corporation. 2022. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  35. ^ "A Look Back and Ahead: Justice Tech in 2025". Justice Technology Association. 13 January 2025. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  36. ^ "Just the Facts: Trends in Pro Se Civil Litigation from 2000 to 2019". United States Courts. 2021-02-11. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  37. ^ a b Smith, Roger (2020). Digital Delivery of Legal Services. The Legal Education Foundation.
  38. ^ "How justice tech is taking a human-centered approach to access to justice challenges". Thomson Reuters. 9 August 2022. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  39. ^ Keseru, Julia (2022). "Designing for Trust: Role and Benefits of Human-Centered Design in the Legal System". International Journal for Court Administration. 12 (3). doi:10.36745/ijca.422.
  40. ^ Smith, Roger (2019). Digital Delivery of Legal Services to People on Low Incomes (Report). The Legal Education Foundation. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  41. ^ Katsh, E.; Rabinovich-Einy, O. (2017). Digital Justice: Technology and the Internet of Disputes. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190464585.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-046458-5.
  42. ^ "Taking a Data-Driven Approach to Increase Access to Justice and Advance SDG16.3.3". SDG16+. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  43. ^ European Judicial Systems: Use of Information Technology in Courts (Report). European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice. 2021.
  44. ^ Technology and the Future of Online Dispute Resolution Platforms (Report). UNCTAD. 2023. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  45. ^ "Digital by Default: Optimisation of Efficiency". Council of Europe. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  46. ^ "Taking a Data-Driven Approach to Increase Access to Justice and Advance SDG16.3.3". SDG16+. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  47. ^ "Data-Driven Prosecution: Why It Matters & How to Implement It". CivicEye. 30 March 2023. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  48. ^ "Data-driven justice project". EIPA. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  49. ^ Posadas, Arnaldo; Vásquez Jordán, Darinka (2020). Posadas, Arnaldo; Vásquez Jordán, Darinka (eds.). Digital Technologies for Better Justice: A Toolkit for Action (Report). doi:10.18235/0002297.
  50. ^ Keseru, Julia. "Technology in the service of justice". The Engine Room. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  51. ^ Eubanks, Virginia (2018). Automating Inequality. St. Martin’s Press.
  52. ^ European Ethical Charter on the Use of AI in Judicial Systems (Report). European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice. 2019.
  53. ^ "Justice Technology Association". Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  54. ^ Sourdin, T. (2021). "Justice and Technological Innovation". Current Issues in Criminal Justice. 33 (1): 1–16.
  55. ^ "The Justice Gap". Legal Services Corporation. 2022.
  56. ^ "Automated Discrimination" (PDF). Big Brother Watch. 2020.
  57. ^ Susskind, Richard (2019). Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198838364.
  58. ^ Citron, Danielle; Pasquale, Frank (2014). "The Scored Society: Due Process for Automated Predictions". Washington Law Review. 89 (1): 1–33.
  59. ^ a b Steinberg, Jessica (2023). "Digital Inequalities and Access to Justice". Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1009255356. Retrieved March 10, 2025.
  60. ^ Eubanks, Virginia (2018). Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1250074317.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Justice_Technology&oldid=1280106424"