为了包容而排斥:在新兴的网络正义世界中,谁应该保持离线?

L. Mulcahy, Anna Tsalapatanis
{"title":"为了包容而排斥:在新兴的网络正义世界中,谁应该保持离线?","authors":"L. Mulcahy, Anna Tsalapatanis","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2022.2136713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT England and Wales are in the middle of an ambitious court reform programme, a key element of which is the shift to more online hearings in appropriate cases. This raises a series of new questions for the judiciary, not least of which is whether there are circumstances in which a video hearing is unsuitable because a key participant is not able to engage effectively online. This article considers current thinking about the circumstances in which a case should be excluded from the list of online proceedings and compares judicial approaches to what we know of digital disadvantage from the social science literature. The authors draw on emerging judicial statements about threshold competencies, and original research with court staff, regular participants in court hearings and lay users. It is argued that the complex dynamics of digital disadvantage are frequently misunderstood and underestimated. This article makes clear the need for a more in-depth consideration of the multiple ways in which digital disadvantage manifests itself beyond a lack of equipment or skills. In doing so it raises critical questions about what we mean by user perspectives and how the voices of users are being heard.","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"44 1","pages":"455 - 476"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exclusion in the interests of inclusion: who should stay offline in the emerging world of online justice?\",\"authors\":\"L. Mulcahy, Anna Tsalapatanis\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09649069.2022.2136713\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT England and Wales are in the middle of an ambitious court reform programme, a key element of which is the shift to more online hearings in appropriate cases. This raises a series of new questions for the judiciary, not least of which is whether there are circumstances in which a video hearing is unsuitable because a key participant is not able to engage effectively online. This article considers current thinking about the circumstances in which a case should be excluded from the list of online proceedings and compares judicial approaches to what we know of digital disadvantage from the social science literature. The authors draw on emerging judicial statements about threshold competencies, and original research with court staff, regular participants in court hearings and lay users. It is argued that the complex dynamics of digital disadvantage are frequently misunderstood and underestimated. This article makes clear the need for a more in-depth consideration of the multiple ways in which digital disadvantage manifests itself beyond a lack of equipment or skills. In doing so it raises critical questions about what we mean by user perspectives and how the voices of users are being heard.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45633,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"455 - 476\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136713\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136713","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

英格兰和威尔士正在进行一项雄心勃勃的法庭改革计划,其中一个关键因素是在适当的案件中转向更多的在线听证会。这给司法部门提出了一系列新问题,其中最重要的是,在某些情况下,视频听证会是否不适合,因为关键参与者无法有效地在网上参与。本文考虑了当前对案件应被排除在在线诉讼程序列表之外的情况的思考,并将司法方法与我们从社会科学文献中所知道的数字劣势进行了比较。作者借鉴了新兴的关于阈值能力的司法陈述,以及对法院工作人员、法庭听证会的定期参与者和非专业用户的原始研究。有人认为,数字劣势的复杂动态经常被误解和低估。本文明确指出,除了缺乏设备或技能之外,还需要更深入地考虑数字劣势表现出来的多种方式。在这样做的过程中,它提出了一些关键的问题,即我们所说的用户观点是什么意思,以及用户的声音是如何被听到的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Exclusion in the interests of inclusion: who should stay offline in the emerging world of online justice?
ABSTRACT England and Wales are in the middle of an ambitious court reform programme, a key element of which is the shift to more online hearings in appropriate cases. This raises a series of new questions for the judiciary, not least of which is whether there are circumstances in which a video hearing is unsuitable because a key participant is not able to engage effectively online. This article considers current thinking about the circumstances in which a case should be excluded from the list of online proceedings and compares judicial approaches to what we know of digital disadvantage from the social science literature. The authors draw on emerging judicial statements about threshold competencies, and original research with court staff, regular participants in court hearings and lay users. It is argued that the complex dynamics of digital disadvantage are frequently misunderstood and underestimated. This article makes clear the need for a more in-depth consideration of the multiple ways in which digital disadvantage manifests itself beyond a lack of equipment or skills. In doing so it raises critical questions about what we mean by user perspectives and how the voices of users are being heard.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
13.30%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law is concerned with social and family law and policy in a UK, European and international context. The policy of the Editors and of the Editorial Board is to provide an interdisciplinary forum to which academics and professionals working in the social welfare and related fields may turn for guidance, comment and informed debate. Features: •Articles •Cases •European Section •Current Development •Ombudsman"s Section •Book Reviews
期刊最新文献
‘Bound’ by grief post-adoption: can the artist’s book assist mothers to tell their stories? A functional approach to defining family in the High Court ‘This is counterproductive’: the design of local welfare assistance schemes in England The sharia inquiry, religious practice and muslim family law in britain Registering births: What’s care got to do with it?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1