No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Abstract
With increasing frequency, witnesses who formerly could only appear in court via deposition transcripts and videotapes now testify live from remote locations via videoconferencing. For many people, the idea of filming testimony evokes concerns about attorneys manipulating a witness's appearance to affect the witness's credibility. For others, the thought of a witness appearing "live via satellite" poses a threat to the very sanctity of the courtroom. In this Comment, Michael Roth examines issues of law and policy raised by introducing videoconferencing technology to trial proceedings. Roth provides a background of the technology and an overview of its current uses in the judicial system. He then looks at the concept of demeanor testimony and examines how media theorists suggest both the technology itself and production techniques can affect perceptions of a witness's demeanor. Roth argues that in light of empirical studies refuting the efficacy of demeanor as an indicator of truthfulness and current trial practices that distort witnesses' credibility, remote witness testimony should not be separately regulated. He concludes that videoconferencing should either be considered an additional tool in the advocate's repertoire of trial tactics, or it should invite a reevaluation of the advocate's role in our adversarial system.
... Since the late 1990s, videoconference (vc) systems have been used in criminal courts in the uk (Plotnikoff & Woolfson 1999;2000) as a means to reduce cost, enhance security, and speed up proceedings. According to , 90% of Magistrate's Courts and all Crown Courts were equipped in 2013 with the necessary Videoconference Interpreting (vci) equipment to enable courts to establish an audio and video feed between the participants physically present in Jerome Devaux. ...
... The second main research theme focuses on the impact that vci equipment has on participants' perceptions of the court hearing, and how court participants interact. Studies reveal that it is more difficult to assess emotions (Radburn-Remfry 1994), body language (Fullwood et al. 2008), and a witness's credibility (Roth 2000). There is also a risk that participants feel detached from the process (McKay 2016), and the working relationship between the remote defendant and the participants in court may be questioned (Hodges 2008). ...
Back in 2000, videoconference systems were introduced in criminal courts in Eng-land and Wales so that defendants could attend their pre-trial court hearings from prison. Since then, the number of cases heard via videoconference interpreting technologies has been on the increase. In order to be able to conduct a hearing remotely, courts and prisons are equipped with cameras, screens, microphones, and loudspeakers which link up both locations so that participants can hear and see each other. In terms of research, various reports on the viability of such systems acknowledge the benefits of conducting court hearings remotely, whilst also highlighting shortfalls. Interestingly, most of these studies were carried out in a monolingual setting, and fewer studies examine the impact of videoconference interpreting equipment in multilingual court settings. In this context the interpreter's role, and more particularly her role perception when technologies are used in a courtroom, remains under-explored. This paper will demonstrate that, unlike in face-to-face court hearings, technologies force some interpreters to create split role models.
... When VC technology replaces live hearings, clear benefits accrue to the governmental side of the system (Poulin, 2004;Thaxton, 1993). Because detainees do not need to be brought to court, videoconferencing reduces the costs and risks associated with transportation and security, while increasing the court's efficiency, allowing more cases to be heard in the same time (Poulin, 2004;Roth, 2000). Those in favor of VC argue that it also benefits detainees, in that they are spared the physical discomfort, emotional distress, and loss of dignity associated with being transported to court and having to appear in public (Poulin, 2004;Silbert et al., 1984). ...
The use of videoconferencing (VC) technology in legal hearings has been expanding recently. However, the effects of using VC in court hearings on different elements of procedural justice have not yet been widely investigated. Systematic observations conducted in 370 exten-sion-of-detention hearings were used to compare the court settings and dimensions of procedural justice between hearings where the detainee was present in person vs. through VC. Multivariate regression analysis indicates that the voice, respect, and neutrality elements of procedural justice are significantly lower in VC hearings than in-person hearings, controlling for various variables. The findings suggest that legal bodies should consider measures to improve the quality of procedural justice during VC hearings, thereby improving satisfaction and acceptance of courts’ decisions.
... Later studies identified difficulties in reading body language (Fullwood et al., 2008) and in assessing a witness' credibility (Roth, 2000) potentially affecting the outcome of proceedings and bringing into question their legality (Haas, 2006;Johnson and Wiggins, 2006). It is important to emphasize that interpreters rely on body language and non-verbal cues to understand the underlying message of an utterance (Wadensjö, 1998;Poyatos, 1987). ...
In response to the increasing use of video links in UK courts, this research study examines the
challenges court interpreters face when working in court-prison video links at a busy court complex in
London, the interpreters' perspectives on these challenges, and the coping strategies they use to
overcome them. This is a multi-method study that combined qualitative methods, which consisted of
observing and interviewing interpreters and quantitative methods, namely the TEIQue self-report
inventory used to assess interpreters’ levels of emotional intelligence. Drawing on the psychological
concept of Emotional Intelligence (EI), we investigate the influence of court interpreters' EI levels on
their views regarding video-mediated interpreting (VMI) and their unique coping strategies in VMI.
Our research reaffirms some of the difficulties with VMI that have been established in previous
research, and it shows that interpreters in our study adapt their strategies in response to these
problematic aspects and that under pressure, they sometimes reluctantly compromise to satisfy
competing needs of the remote defendant and the court. A further finding that is consistent with
previous research is that interpreters' perspectives on VMI varied. To gain a deeper understanding of
these variations, we examined potential relationships between the attitudes towards VMI held by the
interpreters in our study and their respective EI profiles. By conducting a cross-analysis of the
qualitative data (interviews and observations) and the quantitative data (EI scores), we were able to
identify links between interpreters' EI profiles and how they view and respond to VMI challenges.
These findings can inform the implementation of video courts in which interpreters are needed, as
well as help enhance existing VMI training as part of court interpreters’ professional development.
They can also be fed into best-practice guidelines for VMI so that VMI can be used more effectively
enabling a better experience for all parties involved.
... Other participants stated that they were less concerned about the potential impact of telepresence technology on a judge's assessment of a defendant's credibility because people are not especially skilled at accurately reading an individual's demeanor, whether in person or via videoconference. Studies have demonstrated that the assessment of one's demeanor is not a reliable means by which to assess credibility (Bennett, 2015;Blumenthal, 1993;Ogden, 2000;Roth, 2000;Timony, 2000). Therefore, the diminished ability to read a person's demeanor because of the use of cameras and monitors might not be the key issue for determining whether to embrace telepresence technology. ...
... Indeed, courts are often congested and procedures are formalistic; it may take even years before a judgement sees the light of the day, and the economic or even emotional costs involved could be very devastating (Mnookin, 1992). The incorporation of innovative ICT into dispute resolution mechanisms began with taking evidence via video-conferencing and admitting electronic copies of documents (Gertner, 2003;Johnson and Wiggins, 2006;Roth, 2000). This was viewed as a mere aid to the judicial process, which was easier and faster as parties can access justice at a cheaper cost, hence the emergence of " cybercourt " or " cybertribunals " where the procedural steps mimic the court systems (Albornoz and Martín, 2012;Omoola and Oseni, 2016;Ponte, 2002;Ponte and Cavenagh, 2004). ...
Purpose:
This study examines the prospects of utilising an online dispute resolution (ODR) platform for resolving relevant Islamic banking disputes in the usual banker-customer relationship in Malaysia. It is argued that through proper regulation, such innovative dispute management mechanism would not only address some legal risks associated with banking disputes, but could also prevent reputational risks in the Islamic financial services industry.
Design/methodology/approach:
Based on an internet survey, responses were obtained from about 109 respondents in Malaysia. The data obtained were subjected to multivariate statistical analyses considering factors such as access to justice, attitude of stakeholders, resolving disputes, practical issues and understanding of ODR.
Findings:
The results obtained showed that ‘access to justice', 'attitude of stakeholders’ and ‘resolving disputes’ are the most influencing factors affecting the intention to use ODR among stakeholders, particularly customers and bankers in the Islamic financial services industry in Malaysia.
Research limitations/implications:
This study provides a way the recently introduced Islamic Financial Services (Financial Ombudsman Scheme) Regulations 2015 can be better enhanced to cater for internet banking disputes which might require an ODR framework.
Originality/value:
Though there have been numerous studies on the dispute resolution framework in the Islamic banking industry in Malaysia generally, the current study focuses on a less explored framework – online dispute resolution – a new framework for handling banking disputes.
The rapid increase in e-commerce transactions has led to the emergence of new dispute resolution models, e.g. online dispute resolution (ODR). Simultaneously, public courts embrace new information and communication technologies in order to overcome the shortcomings of the public court system. Technological redress is more and more often sought within the private regimes of e-commerce instead of through public courts. But what exactly does this shift to technology in dispute resolution entail? In this book Koulu examines the multifaceted phenomenon of dispute resolution technology, using private enforcement as an example, and the impact it has on justifying dispute resolution. The implementation of technology in dispute resolution reveals the hidden justificatory narratives of procedural law and thus provides possibilities for their critical examination. Koulu argues that the privatisation of enforcement – as it is enabled by different forms of technology from the direct enforcement of e-commerce market leaders to self-executing smart contracts in the blockchain – brings the inherent violence of law out into the open. This increase in private enforcement, in turn, challenges the nationstate’s monopoly on violence, which has traditionally formed the main source of justification for dispute resolution and the enforcement of judicial decisions. After examining the possibilities of finding justification for private enforcement from other sources, e.g. from private autonomy or from human rights discourse, Koulu claims that private enforcement constitutes a new grey area of conflict management. Koulu’s doctoral dissertation gives unique insight into contemporary debates both in global procedural law and law and technology studies.
Teknolojinin hızla geliştiği bir çağda, hukuk sistemlerinin buna kayıtsız kalması ve teknolojinin imkânlarından yararlanılmaması düşünülemez. developments Bu gelişmelere paralel olarak, görüntülü ve sesli iletişim teknikleri kullanılarak, ilgililerin duruşmaya (video konferans yöntemiyle) uzaktan katılımları sağlanmaktadır. Bu yöntemin kullanılması hukuk sistemlerine, transfer masraflarından tasarruf etme ve yargılamayı makul sürede tamamlama gibi birçok avantaj sağlamaktadır. Bununla beraber anılan yöntem, adil yargılanma hakkı kapsamındaki birçok güvenceyi sınırlamaktadır. Çalışmada, terminolojik bir tartışmanın ardından adil yargılanma hakkı ile ilgili genel esaslar açıklanmıştır. Devamında, medeni hak ve yükümlükler ile suç isnadına ilişkin uyuşmazlıklarda video konferans yönteminin kullanılması, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi ve Anayasa Mahkemesi içtihatları açısından değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonunda ise mevzuat ile Yargıtay ve bölge adliye mahkemelerinin içtihadı ortaya konularak, duruşmaya uzaktan katılan her bir süje bakımından değerlendirmeler yapılmıştır.
This Article reports the findings of the first empirical study of the use of televideo technology to remotely adjudicate the immigration cases of litigants held in detention centers in the United States. Comparing the outcomes of televideo and in-person cases in federal immigration courts, it reveals an outcome paradox: detained televideo litigants were more likely than detained in-person litigants to be deported, but judges did not deny respondents' claims in televideo cases at higher rates. Instead, these inferior results were associated with the fact that detained litigants assigned to televideo courtrooms exhibited depressed engagement with the adversarial process—they were less likely to retain counsel, apply to remain lawfully in the United States, or seek an immigration benefit known as voluntary departure. Drawing on interviews of stakeholders and court observations from the highest-volume detained immigration courts in the country, this Article advances several explanations for why televideo litigants might be less likely than other detained litigants to take advantage of procedures that could help them. These reasons include litigants' perception that televideo is unfair and illegitimate, technical challenges in litigating claims over a screen, remote litigants' lower quality interactions with other courtroom actors, and the exclusion of a public audience from the remote courtroom. This Article's findings begin an important conversation about technology's threat to meaningful litigant participation in the adversarial process.
Most scholarship on the professional role of the criminal defense attorney focuses on a search for the appropriate philosophical or moral justifications for the attorney's zealous advocacy. In this Article, Professor Ogletree argues that this focus is misplaced. Nearly all lawyers and legal scholars agree that the criminal defense lawyer's role is justified and that public defenders are necessary to the constitutional and moral legitimacy of the criminal justice system. However, because little attention has been paid to developing techniques that will motivate people to become and remain public defenders, many public defenders "burn out." The result is that conduct most lawyers believe is both justified and necessary fails to occur. Professor Ogletree argues that legal scholars should move beyond abstract justifications of criminal defense work and should instead explore and develop motivations for lawyers to represent the indigent. Drawing on his personal experiences as a public defender, he identifies two factors - empathy and heroism - that motivated him to continue in the face of a tragedy that shook his faith in the system. Professor Ogletree argues that public defender organizations can promote these values by drawing on the example of the District of Columbia Public Defender Service, which promotes an ethos within the office that sustains public defenders' commitment to clients. In addition, he argues that law schools should employ clinical teaching techniques that foster these motivations.
In this essay I shall address the modem American system of plea bargaining from a perspective that must appear bizarre, although I hope to persuade you that it is illuminating. I am going to contrast plea bargaining with the medieval European law of torture. My thesis is that there are remarkable parallels in origin, in function, and even in specific points of doctrine, between the law of torture and the law of plea bargaining. I shall suggest that these parallels expose someaimportant truths about how criminal justice systems respond when their trial procedures fall into deep disorder.
The present Article demonstrates the error of this universalist theory of plea bargaining by showing how and why one major legal system, the West German, has so successfully avoided any form or analogue of plea bargaining in its procedures for cases of serious crime. The German criminal justice system functions without plea bargaining not by good fortune, but as a result of deliberate policies and careful institutional design whose essential elements are outlined in Part I. Part II addresses the American claims that a clandestine plea bargaining system lurks behind veils of German pretense.
Our lawyer-dominated system of civil procedure has often been criticized both for its incentives to distort evidence and for the expense and complexity of its modes of discovery and trial. The shortcomings inhere in a system that leaves to partisans the work of gathering and producing the factual material upon which adjudication depends.
We have comforted ourselves with the thought that a lawyerless system would be worse. The excesses of American adversary justice would seem to pale by comparison with a literally nonadversarial system-one in which litigants would be remitted to faceless bureaucratic adjudicators and denied the safeguards that flow from lawyerly intermediation.
The main theme of this article is drawn from Continental civil procedure, exemplified for me by the system that I know reasonably well, the West German. My theme is that, by assigning judges rather than lawyers to investigate the facts, the Germans avoid the most troublesome aspects of our practice. But I shall emphasize that the familiar contrast between our adversarial procedure and the supposedly nonadversarial procedure of the Continental tradition has been grossly overdrawn. To be sure, since the greater responsibility of the bench for
Lying and lie detection are the two components that, together, make up the exchange called as the “communication of deception.” Deception is an act that is intended to foster in another person a belief or understanding that the deceiver considers false. This chapter presents a primarily psychological point of view and a relatively microanalysis of the verbal and nonverbal exchange between the deceiver and the lie detector. The chapter discusses the definition of deception. It describes the deceiver's perspective in lie-detection, including the strategies of deception and behaviors associated with lie-telling. The lie-detector's perspective is also discussed in the chapter, and it has described behaviors associated with the judgments of deception and strategies of lie detection. The chapter discusses the outcomes of the deceptive communication process—that is, the accuracy of lie detection—and explores methodological issues, channel effects in the detection of deception, and other factors affecting the accuracy of lie detection.