محاکم برخط، معایب و مشکلات
Daily programs persuading states to decrease administrative problems in their social management by using the online services in different areas like judicial cases, have not removed drawbacks of such a method profoundly. While the online services have been defended by the vast range of governors and academics, their problems have captured public attentions.
First and foremost, the process of an authorization for the online participation has been vastly criticized by lawyers and judges. Whether the online trail is always obligatory or some parties can request to participate by an online system whenever they were not summoned or they cannot or do not want to be in a court session in person, has been asked more and more. This status has attracted the focus of the legal and professional studies. It is a critical principle that the online services cannot be acceptable similarly for all different cases. The criminal trails are mentioned controversially. The judge will face some serious problems to summon accused persons who committed a murder, felony or even a misdemeanor, for example. Nevertheless, it is probably accepted in a tort trial, but it is hard to be decided yet. In the category of civil cases, the story is different. The majority of lawyers and law makers are more agreed to authorize an online judicial process in civil fields.
The second point is related to the legal evidences to justify the general prosecutor’s request to convict a criminal or accept the lawyers’ defenses to acquit the accused one. In both civil and criminal trials, witnesses play a vital role to assist the judge or the jury to decide in a robust verdict. They are summoned officially to participate in a court session to testify about the case. They testify, while they are noted about their speech and the punishment of perjury. This is a definite right for parties including the advocates and prosecutors to ask some questions or criticize the witnesses’ backgrounds. It is much harder to respect the judicial procedures in an online court session. Also it is not easy for a clerk to record all the events happened or even the points announced by plaintiffs, defendants or the experts.
Thirdly, the judges understand about the cases by analyzing the parties’ behavior or even their body language in a court session. It has been defined as jurisprudence. It is not possible to to achieved unless in a complete session hearing where the judge and the jury focus on the litigation. The parties, meanwhile, must attend the court hearing to show points including what happened or was intended, restructuring the mind of the judge or the jury. It is a professional responsibility of the defense or prosecutor lawyers to give clear evidence to strengthen or reject such claims.
In addition, it is not defined yet who is eligible to request for an online session and who is authorized to decide about that. The lack of act has been observed in the vast majority of countries. Some academics have claimed the online attendance can be used as a tricky defense for changing the approach of investigation or hiding their case dimensions. It is sometimes necessary to deliver and view an original writ delivered to the court. The act or law procedures must allow the judge or parties to use alternative ways to assess the context and the originality of the writ in an online session. The code of conduct approved by the parliaments, for example, will be different, if the online session is authorized in advance. The risk of the breach of a fair trial should be decreased by the alternative online procedures already assessed and analyzed profoundly by lawmakers and professional academics. The rules for testimony, investigations, summoning or recording the court sessions and hearing details and son on should be revised by authorized institutions defined in the constitutional laws.
Last but not least, there are the increasingly serious concerns about the code of confidentiality. The trial is not warmly welcomed to take a photo or record films. The details including the accused’s investigations, the defense of lawyers, witnesses and their speech, for example, must be protected to reserve the rights of parties and the society as a whole, due to this fact that it is vital to achieve a fair decision. Media and some websites are always ready to publicize such specifics to attract readers financially or persuade the public in order to put pressure on the judges or the jury for political purposes. Also an eye witness is in danger to be injured or killed, their details are accessible in an online trial. In addition, it is possible that the data bases are misused by the hackers, the intelligence services or even the parties. The documents may be revised, changed or removed in such a session seriously. Finally, the lack of proper internet infrastructures may not give a strong, clear and stable chance to patriciate or manage an online session where the technical system has not been prepared professionally yet.
Having cited above points, I strongly discuss the drawbacks of an online court. Although there is a myriad of benefits for such an newly found innovation to observe, its problems must be removed in advance.