|
JoseMariaDelajaraFirstEssay 5 - 09 Oct 2019 - Main.JoseMariaDelajara
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| | | Open data in the judiciary resides on three principles: (1) transparency, (2) seeking citizen participation (3) and 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 would 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. | |
<
< | Expected effects | >
> | Open justice = more access to justice | | | | |
<
< | Open justice would have beneficial effects both on the public and the private sector. The key promise is that as the data sets keeps growing, machine learning software will be able to depict in more precise terms the decision patterns from legal actors. This could help bridge the access to justice gap by providing guidance to citizens without a lawyer. Also, judicial analytics could level the playing field between big law and public attorneys by providing a basis of the quality of legal claims and evidence. Finally, it could also help judges learn from their mistakes, and provide assistance towards better decision-making.
However, the vast majority of legal data is currently unavailable for analytics. It could be either that it is not shared, or that is not machine-readable. But the main point is that the control of legal data still remains in the hands of a few private entities such as big law firms and companies like Lexis Nexis.
Limits | >
> | Open justice would have beneficial effects both on the public and the private sector. The key promise is that as the data sets keeps growing, data analytics will be able to depict in more precise terms the decision patterns from legal actors. This could help bridge the access to justice gap by providing guidance to citizens without a lawyer. Also, judicial analytics could level the playing field between big law and public attorneys by providing a basis of the quality of legal claims and evidence. Finally, it could also help judges learn from their mistakes, and provide assistance towards better decision-making. However, the vast majority of legal data is currently unavailable for analytics. It could be either that it is not shared, or that is not machine-readable. But the main point is that the control of legal data still remains in the hands of a few private entities such as big law firms and companies like Lexis Nexis. | | | | |
>
> | Open justice = less corruption | | | Will we like our reflection in the mirror? |
|
|
JoseMariaDelajaraFirstEssay 4 - 09 Oct 2019 - Main.JoseMariaDelajara
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| | | The problem | |
<
< | 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? | >
> | 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 | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | Definition
Open data in the judiciary resides on three principles: (1) transparency, (2) seeking citizen participation (3) and 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 would 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.
Expected effects
Open justice would have beneficial effects both on the public and the private sector. The key promise is that as the data sets keeps growing, machine learning software will be able to depict in more precise terms the decision patterns from legal actors. This could help bridge the access to justice gap by providing guidance to citizens without a lawyer. Also, judicial analytics could level the playing field between big law and public attorneys by providing a basis of the quality of legal claims and evidence. Finally, it could also help judges learn from their mistakes, and provide assistance towards better decision-making.
However, the vast majority of legal data is currently unavailable for analytics. It could be either that it is not shared, or that is not machine-readable. But the main point is that the control of legal data still remains in the hands of a few private entities such as big law firms and companies like Lexis Nexis.
| | | | |
<
< | Effects | | | Limits |
|
|
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
] |
|
|
JoseMariaDelajaraFirstEssay 2 - 06 Oct 2019 - Main.JoseMariaDelajara
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | | |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Paper Title
-- By JoseMariaDelajara - 05 Oct 2019 | |
>
> | The problem | | | | |
<
< | Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1 | >
> | 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? | | | | |
>
> | Open justice | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 2 | >
> | Less corruption | | | | |
>
> | Limits | | | | |
<
< | Section II | >
> | Will we like our reflection in the mirror? | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | The way forward | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> | ] | | |
|
|
|
JoseMariaDelajaraFirstEssay 1 - 05 Oct 2019 - Main.JoseMariaDelajara
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
-- By JoseMariaDelajara - 05 Oct 2019
Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|