| | |
|
JoseMariaDelajaraFirstEssay 3 - 07 Oct 2019 - Main.JoseMariaDelajara
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| | | The problem | |
<
< | Government officials won't allocate budget and staff to publish data unless it is claimed by the people. They are aware that data transparency leads to accountability, and they prefer to act under less risky terms. This lack of transparency is particularly worrying in the judiciary, as the progress in opening judicial data sets has been slower than that of the legislative and executive branches. Sooner rather than later, enough people will be aware of the value of their own personal data and the extent to which it is used to predict behavior. This acknowledgement could ease the path towards a stronger open justice and open government movement. In turn, data analytics will eventually show judicial decisions as they really are: irrational yet predictable. When we face the complete picture of our flawed justice system, will we still accept it? | >
> | Support for open government is growing. However, the progress in opening judicial data sets has been slower than that of the legislative and executive branches. The main fear of judicial officers seems to be the perception that new technologies (i.e. data analytics) could have adverse effects on the employee’s job. In other words, judges seem to be worried that data analytics will show their decisions as they really are: irrational yet predictable. When we face the complete picture of our flawed justice system, will we still accept it? | | | Open justice | |
<
< | Less corruption | >
> | Open data in the judiciary resides on three principles: (1) transparency, (2) seeking citizen participation (3) institutional collaboration. According to Elena, an open justice system should at least publish (1) court rulings, (2) statistics regarding the performance of courts and (3) budget allocation information. Also, that data should be both legally and technically open. Citizens need to be allowed to freely access, reuse and distribute the data, which should be made available in a machine-readable format and in bulk.
Effects | | | Limits
Will we like our reflection in the mirror? | |
>
> | The English excuses
The French #JudicialBan
Recently, France banned the publication of statistical information about judges’ decisions. Anyone who breaks the law could be punished with a sentence of up to five years in prison. On its article 33, the new French Justice Reform Act states that “_the identity data of the magistrates and the members of the judiciary may not be reused with the purpose or effect of evaluating, analyzing, comparing or predicting their actual or presumed professional practices_”. Hence, the French Government did not intend to stop publishing the data; just to punish its comprehension through data analytics.
| | | The way forward
] |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |