Content provided in partnership with
WASHINGTON STATE ACCESS TO JUSTICE TECHNOLOGY PRINCIPLES: A PERSPECTIVE FOR JUSTICE SYSTEM PROFESSIONALS, THE
Justice System Journal, 2006 by Zorza, Richard, Horowitz, Donald J
Speafkity/generality: Some advocates resisted reliance on general principles. They urged a far more specific set of rules to govern technology in the justice system. While obtaining adoption of specific rules dealing with such a broad range of issues would itself have been highly unlikely, it is in any event far from clear that such rules would have sufficient utility. In the long term, it is general principles that best apply to varied situations as they evolve. The committee hoped that the Principles as drafted represented a sufficient step back from specific competing concerns of different constituencies to enable or provide agreement about the relationship between courts, technology, and access to justice.
- Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »
In addition, the "Best Practices" Principle offered a mechanism for the development of far more detailed, but also flexible, guidelines that can be used to address specific situations, for example, the appropriateness of a particular electronic filing technique.
Inclusion of constituencies: The decision was made early in the process that the Principles should not be drafted in a "top-down" process but should reflect the concerns, viewpoints, perspectives, and needs of the relevant constituencies. Multiple methodologies (e.g., focus groups and surveys) were used throughout the process to collect information that would provide the foundation for the Principles.
THE ORDER AND PRINCIPLES AS THEY EMERGED
The principles, as adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court, are set forth and discussed here, beginning with the Preamble. The Preamble, Principles, and a statement on the Scope (which is not addressed here, but designed to maximize the reach of the Principles) were adopted by court order. The Preamble reads:
The use of technologies in the Washington State justice system must protect and advance the fundamental right of equal access to justice. There is a particular need to avoid creating or increasing barriers to access and to reduce or remove existing barriers for those who are or may be excluded or under served, including those not represented by counsel.
The final version of the Principles included formally adopted comments. One portion of the official Comment to the Preamble is particularly noteworthy:
These Principles do not mandate new expenditures, create new causes of action, or repeal or modify any rule. Rather, they require that justice system decision makers consider access to justice, take certain steps whenever technology that may affect access to justice is planned or implemented, avoid reducing access, and, whenever possible, use technology to enhance access to justice.
The first Principle, "Requirement of Access to Justice," reads:
Access to a just result requires access to the justice system. Use of technology in the justice system should serve to promote equal access to justice and to promote the opportunity for equal participation in the justice system for all. Introduction of technology or changes in the use of technology must not reduce access or participation and, whenever possible, shall advance such access and participation.
Find Research Guides for:
Find Featured Titles for: Arts
Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »