File #2473: "2018_Book_TheResponsiveJudge.pdf"
Testo
1|Foreword|7
1|Preface|9
1|Contents|12
1|Editors and Contributors|14
1|What Is Responsive Judging?|16
2|1 Introduction|16
2|2 Responsiveness and the Jurisprudence of Judging|18
3|2.1 Norms of Judging: Impartiality|22
3|2.2 Norms of Judging: Independence and Transparency|24
3|2.3 Civil and Common Law Traditions and Objectives|26
2|3 Elements of Responsiveness|28
3|3.1 Responding to Accountability|28
3|3.2 Responding to a Networked Society|31
3|3.3 Responding to Litigants|33
3|3.4 Responding to Public Attention|36
2|4 Critiques of Responsiveness|37
3|4.1 The Exceptionalism/Personalism Critique|38
3|4.2 The Judicial Function Critique|39
3|4.3 The Judicial Activism Critique|40
3|4.4 The Impartiality Critique|41
2|5 Studies of Responsiveness—Overview of the Chapters|43
2|References|46
1|Theoretical and Conceptual Contributions to Responsive Judging|54
1|The Responsive Tribunal: Robust Processes; Fair and Timely Outcomes|55
2|1 Introduction|55
2|2 Strategies for Responsiveness in Decision-Making Processes|57
3|2.1 Using Discretion|57
3|2.2 Weighing and Balancing|58
3|2.3 Encouraging Responsiveness Between Participants|59
3|2.4 Empowering Participants to Engage Meaningfully|59
3|2.5 Designing the Process for the Circumstances|61
3|2.6 Communicating Effectively|66
3|2.7 Exploring Interests|67
3|2.8 Clarifying Facts and the Law|68
2|3 Providing Opportunities to Resolve by Agreement|68
3|3.1 Timing|69
3|3.2 Compulsory or Optional Processes|69
3|3.3 The Mediation Model and Broader Dispute Resolution Principles|70
3|3.4 Process Design|71
3|3.5 Choice of Dispute Resolver|72
2|4 Conclusion|73
2|References|73
1|Settlement Adjudication and Judicial Responsiveness: The Choice Between a Wide and a Narrow Model|75
2|1 Introduction|75
2|2 The Range and Development of the Judicial Role|78
3|2.1 The Range and Development of the Judicial Role in the United States|78
3|2.2 The Range and Development of the Judicial Role in Israel|85
3|2.3 Concerns and Criticisms of Settlement Adjudication|86
2|3 Settlement Adjudication According to the Narrow Model|87
3|3.1 Characteristics of the Narrow Model|87
3|3.2 Advantages and Disadvantages|88
2|4 Settlement Adjudication According to the Wide Model|89
3|4.1 Characteristics of the Wide Model|89
3|4.2 Advantages and Disadvantages|90
2|5 Proposals for Increasing the Use of the Wide Model|93
2|6 Conclusion|95
2|References|96
1|Do Judges Need to Be Human? The Implications of Technology for Responsive Judging|101
2|1 Introduction|102
2|2 Part 1—How AI Can Beneficially Contribute to the Work of Courts and Judges|105
3|2.1 Technology and Dispute Resolution|105
3|2.2 Technology Supporting Human Judges and Court Processes|107
3|2.3 All Rise for Judge “Co-bot”?|108
3|2.4 Judge Co-bot: Human Unconscious Bias and Quality Control?|109
2|3 Part 2—Limits to Judge AI|111
3|3.1 More Than Presiding in Court—the True Extent of the Role of the Modern Judge|111
3|3.2 The Rule of Law, Judicial Authority, and the Human Judge|112
3|3.3 Variation in the Adjudicative Function Within the Judicial Hierarchy|113
3|3.4 The Challenge of Novelty|114
3|3.5 Translating Law into Code|115
3|3.6 Syntax and Semantics|116
3|3.7 To Judge Is Human—An Existential Limit to the Development of Judge AI|116
3|3.8 Responding to Dataism in Relation to Judge AI—A Psychoanalytical Model of the Legal/Judicial Psyche|118
3|3.9 Legal Training and Practice Builds a Separate “Legal Self” Alongside the “Personal Self”|120
3|3.10 The Legal Super-Ego|120
3|3.11 The Legal Ego|123
3|3.12 The Place of the Pre-conscious and Unconscious as a Link Between the Legal Psyche and the Personal Psyche|123
2|4 Conclusion|126
2|References|128
1|The High Court and the Cocktail Party from Hell: Can Social Media Improve Community Engagement with the Courts?|134
2|1 Introduction|134
3|1.1 Social Media and Responsive Judging: An Australian Context|135
3|1.2 Active Use of Social Media and Responsive Judging|137
2|2 Breaking Through the Din: Publishing Information on the Courts|138
3|2.1 Open Justice and Empty Galleries|139
3|2.2 Social Media: Killing the Messenger?|140
3|2.3 Of Judges, Rock Stars and Judicial Rock Stars: Cutting Through the Hyper Din|141
3|2.4 A Case Study: #Letthemstay|142
2|3 Role of Traditional Media|144
2|4 Role of Advocacy Organisations|145
3|4.1 Is There a (Virtual) Public Gallery?|145
2|5 Can Social Media Be Influential?|146
3|5.1 Echo Chambers or Accidental Exposure?|147
3|5.2 “The High Court Is High”, the “Nutty Ninth” and Other Epithets|148
2|6 The Ninth Circuit and the Media|149
2|7 Addressing the (Virtual) Gallery|150
2|8 Breaking Through the Hyper-din?|150
2|References|151
1|Sustainable Justice, A Social Responsible Focus on Innovation in Justice|155
2|1 From Stockholm 1972 and Limits to Growth to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the UN and the Earth Charter|156
2|2 Implementing Sustainability in Organisations|159
2|3 Organisational Tools for Designing Judicial Organisations in a Complex Society|165
2|4 Response of the Judicial System to Societal Problems|171
2|5 Sustainable Justice Charter 1.0 (Dd. 2015, December 10)|176
2|6 Conclusion: The Charter and Its Place in the Sustainability Movement|179
2|References|181
1|Comparative Approaches to Responsive Judging|184
1|Inside Out or Outside In?: Looking at Judges’ Relations with the Public in Canada and China|185
2|1 Introduction|185
2|2 Internal and External Aspects of the Judicial Role|188
3|2.1 Legitimacy|188
3|2.2 Responsiveness|189
3|2.3 Comparativism|190
2|3 Canadian Judges|191
3|3.1 The Canadian Judiciary|191
3|3.2 Professional Ethics|191
3|3.3 Law and Politics (Tom Berger)|193
3|3.4 Local Involvement (Ted Matlow)|195
3|3.5 Judges’ Public Role (Beverley McLachlin)|197
2|4 Chinese Judges|200
3|4.1 The Chinese Judiciary|200
3|4.2 Professionalization of Judges|201
3|4.3 Law and Politics (Zhou Qiang)|204
3|4.4 Judicial Speech|206
3|4.5 Judges’ Public Role|210
2|5 Comparisons|212
3|5.1 Same Behavior/Different Meaning|213
3|5.2 Same Behavior/Same Meaning|214
3|5.3 Different Behavior/Different Meaning|215
3|5.4 Different Behavior/Same Meaning|218
2|6 Conclusion|220
2|References|221
1|Judicial Practice in Action: Court Reform and Responsive Judges in Canada|226
2|1 Introduction|226
2|2 Responsive Judges|230
2|3 Civil Rules Response|231
3|3.1 ADR Pilot Project and Early Case Management|231
3|3.2 The Bar Strikes Back|235
3|3.3 Procedural Politics|236
2|4 Courthouse Construction and Sentencing Reforms|238
3|4.1 The Aboriginal Conference Settlement Suite|238
3|4.2 Judges Other Work|241
3|4.3 Politics in Practice|243
2|5 Responsive Research|244
2|References|246
1|Judging in a Therapeutic Way: TJ Audit of Juvenile, Probation and Criminal Procedure Law in Pakistan with Reference to Therapeutic Design and Therapeutic Application of Law|250
2|1 Introduction|251
2|2 Therapeutic Design and Application of Law (TDL and TAL)|253
2|3 TDL and TAL Analysis of the Pakistan Penal Code|254
2|4 TDL and TAL Analysis of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 and the Probation of Offenders Ordinance 1960|257
3|4.1 Probation|262
3|4.2 Court Controlled Probation|262
3|4.3 Death Penalty and Handcuffs|263
2|5 Legal and Judicial Education on TJ|264
2|6 Practicing TJ in Court|264
2|7 Conclusion|265
2|References|265
1|The #BlueWhale Challenge to the Indian Judiciary: A Critical Analysis of the Response of the Indian Higher Judiciary to Risky Online Contents with Special Reference to the BlueWhale Suicide Game|268
2|1 Introduction|269
2|2 The BlueWhale Game Phenomena in India|270
3|2.1 Deciding upon the Cause of Concern for Online Issues: A Challenge to the Judiciary|273
2|3 The BlueWhale Challenge to the Judiciary|278
2|4 Conclusion|283
2|References|284
1|The Responsive Judge: Comparative Perspectives of Korea and Japan|286
2|1 Introduction|286
2|2 Legal Culture of Korea and Japan|288
3|2.1 Korea’s Legal Culture|289
3|2.2 Japan’s Legal Culture|290
2|3 The Comparison of Constitutional Review in Korea and Japan|291
3|3.1 Korea—Judge’s Responsive Activism|292
3|3.2 Japan’s Less Responsive Supreme Court|300
2|4 Civil Litigation and Conciliation in Korea|305
3|4.1 Less Responsive to Civil Litigation|305
3|4.2 Statistic Trends of Civil Litigation|306
3|4.3 Relative Responsive Type of Court Mediation|308
2|5 Pro-responsive Type of Court Mediation in Japan|311
3|5.1 Responsive Civil Mediation|311
3|5.2 Conciliation of Summary Court|312
2|6 Conclusion|314
2|References|315
1|Mansfield, Atkin, Weinstein: Three Responsive Judges at the Nexus of Law, Politics, and Economy|319
2|1 Introduction|319
2|2 Somerset’s Case|321
3|2.1 Background|321
3|2.2 Chief Justice Mansfield|322
3|2.3 Outcome|323
3|2.4 The Snail in the Bottle|324
3|2.5 Lord Atkin|325
3|2.6 Outcome|326
2|3 Agent Orange|327
3|3.1 Background|327
3|3.2 Judge Jack Weinstein|328
3|3.3 Outcome|328
2|4 Common Factors|329
3|4.1 Philosophy of Law|329
3|4.2 Skill in Legal Technique|330
3|4.3 Perception of Public Interest as a Desire for Justice|331
3|4.4 Agony of Decision|333
2|5 Limits and Links|333
2|6 Conclusion|338
2|References|339
1|Index|343
1|Preface|9
1|Contents|12
1|Editors and Contributors|14
1|What Is Responsive Judging?|16
2|1 Introduction|16
2|2 Responsiveness and the Jurisprudence of Judging|18
3|2.1 Norms of Judging: Impartiality|22
3|2.2 Norms of Judging: Independence and Transparency|24
3|2.3 Civil and Common Law Traditions and Objectives|26
2|3 Elements of Responsiveness|28
3|3.1 Responding to Accountability|28
3|3.2 Responding to a Networked Society|31
3|3.3 Responding to Litigants|33
3|3.4 Responding to Public Attention|36
2|4 Critiques of Responsiveness|37
3|4.1 The Exceptionalism/Personalism Critique|38
3|4.2 The Judicial Function Critique|39
3|4.3 The Judicial Activism Critique|40
3|4.4 The Impartiality Critique|41
2|5 Studies of Responsiveness—Overview of the Chapters|43
2|References|46
1|Theoretical and Conceptual Contributions to Responsive Judging|54
1|The Responsive Tribunal: Robust Processes; Fair and Timely Outcomes|55
2|1 Introduction|55
2|2 Strategies for Responsiveness in Decision-Making Processes|57
3|2.1 Using Discretion|57
3|2.2 Weighing and Balancing|58
3|2.3 Encouraging Responsiveness Between Participants|59
3|2.4 Empowering Participants to Engage Meaningfully|59
3|2.5 Designing the Process for the Circumstances|61
3|2.6 Communicating Effectively|66
3|2.7 Exploring Interests|67
3|2.8 Clarifying Facts and the Law|68
2|3 Providing Opportunities to Resolve by Agreement|68
3|3.1 Timing|69
3|3.2 Compulsory or Optional Processes|69
3|3.3 The Mediation Model and Broader Dispute Resolution Principles|70
3|3.4 Process Design|71
3|3.5 Choice of Dispute Resolver|72
2|4 Conclusion|73
2|References|73
1|Settlement Adjudication and Judicial Responsiveness: The Choice Between a Wide and a Narrow Model|75
2|1 Introduction|75
2|2 The Range and Development of the Judicial Role|78
3|2.1 The Range and Development of the Judicial Role in the United States|78
3|2.2 The Range and Development of the Judicial Role in Israel|85
3|2.3 Concerns and Criticisms of Settlement Adjudication|86
2|3 Settlement Adjudication According to the Narrow Model|87
3|3.1 Characteristics of the Narrow Model|87
3|3.2 Advantages and Disadvantages|88
2|4 Settlement Adjudication According to the Wide Model|89
3|4.1 Characteristics of the Wide Model|89
3|4.2 Advantages and Disadvantages|90
2|5 Proposals for Increasing the Use of the Wide Model|93
2|6 Conclusion|95
2|References|96
1|Do Judges Need to Be Human? The Implications of Technology for Responsive Judging|101
2|1 Introduction|102
2|2 Part 1—How AI Can Beneficially Contribute to the Work of Courts and Judges|105
3|2.1 Technology and Dispute Resolution|105
3|2.2 Technology Supporting Human Judges and Court Processes|107
3|2.3 All Rise for Judge “Co-bot”?|108
3|2.4 Judge Co-bot: Human Unconscious Bias and Quality Control?|109
2|3 Part 2—Limits to Judge AI|111
3|3.1 More Than Presiding in Court—the True Extent of the Role of the Modern Judge|111
3|3.2 The Rule of Law, Judicial Authority, and the Human Judge|112
3|3.3 Variation in the Adjudicative Function Within the Judicial Hierarchy|113
3|3.4 The Challenge of Novelty|114
3|3.5 Translating Law into Code|115
3|3.6 Syntax and Semantics|116
3|3.7 To Judge Is Human—An Existential Limit to the Development of Judge AI|116
3|3.8 Responding to Dataism in Relation to Judge AI—A Psychoanalytical Model of the Legal/Judicial Psyche|118
3|3.9 Legal Training and Practice Builds a Separate “Legal Self” Alongside the “Personal Self”|120
3|3.10 The Legal Super-Ego|120
3|3.11 The Legal Ego|123
3|3.12 The Place of the Pre-conscious and Unconscious as a Link Between the Legal Psyche and the Personal Psyche|123
2|4 Conclusion|126
2|References|128
1|The High Court and the Cocktail Party from Hell: Can Social Media Improve Community Engagement with the Courts?|134
2|1 Introduction|134
3|1.1 Social Media and Responsive Judging: An Australian Context|135
3|1.2 Active Use of Social Media and Responsive Judging|137
2|2 Breaking Through the Din: Publishing Information on the Courts|138
3|2.1 Open Justice and Empty Galleries|139
3|2.2 Social Media: Killing the Messenger?|140
3|2.3 Of Judges, Rock Stars and Judicial Rock Stars: Cutting Through the Hyper Din|141
3|2.4 A Case Study: #Letthemstay|142
2|3 Role of Traditional Media|144
2|4 Role of Advocacy Organisations|145
3|4.1 Is There a (Virtual) Public Gallery?|145
2|5 Can Social Media Be Influential?|146
3|5.1 Echo Chambers or Accidental Exposure?|147
3|5.2 “The High Court Is High”, the “Nutty Ninth” and Other Epithets|148
2|6 The Ninth Circuit and the Media|149
2|7 Addressing the (Virtual) Gallery|150
2|8 Breaking Through the Hyper-din?|150
2|References|151
1|Sustainable Justice, A Social Responsible Focus on Innovation in Justice|155
2|1 From Stockholm 1972 and Limits to Growth to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the UN and the Earth Charter|156
2|2 Implementing Sustainability in Organisations|159
2|3 Organisational Tools for Designing Judicial Organisations in a Complex Society|165
2|4 Response of the Judicial System to Societal Problems|171
2|5 Sustainable Justice Charter 1.0 (Dd. 2015, December 10)|176
2|6 Conclusion: The Charter and Its Place in the Sustainability Movement|179
2|References|181
1|Comparative Approaches to Responsive Judging|184
1|Inside Out or Outside In?: Looking at Judges’ Relations with the Public in Canada and China|185
2|1 Introduction|185
2|2 Internal and External Aspects of the Judicial Role|188
3|2.1 Legitimacy|188
3|2.2 Responsiveness|189
3|2.3 Comparativism|190
2|3 Canadian Judges|191
3|3.1 The Canadian Judiciary|191
3|3.2 Professional Ethics|191
3|3.3 Law and Politics (Tom Berger)|193
3|3.4 Local Involvement (Ted Matlow)|195
3|3.5 Judges’ Public Role (Beverley McLachlin)|197
2|4 Chinese Judges|200
3|4.1 The Chinese Judiciary|200
3|4.2 Professionalization of Judges|201
3|4.3 Law and Politics (Zhou Qiang)|204
3|4.4 Judicial Speech|206
3|4.5 Judges’ Public Role|210
2|5 Comparisons|212
3|5.1 Same Behavior/Different Meaning|213
3|5.2 Same Behavior/Same Meaning|214
3|5.3 Different Behavior/Different Meaning|215
3|5.4 Different Behavior/Same Meaning|218
2|6 Conclusion|220
2|References|221
1|Judicial Practice in Action: Court Reform and Responsive Judges in Canada|226
2|1 Introduction|226
2|2 Responsive Judges|230
2|3 Civil Rules Response|231
3|3.1 ADR Pilot Project and Early Case Management|231
3|3.2 The Bar Strikes Back|235
3|3.3 Procedural Politics|236
2|4 Courthouse Construction and Sentencing Reforms|238
3|4.1 The Aboriginal Conference Settlement Suite|238
3|4.2 Judges Other Work|241
3|4.3 Politics in Practice|243
2|5 Responsive Research|244
2|References|246
1|Judging in a Therapeutic Way: TJ Audit of Juvenile, Probation and Criminal Procedure Law in Pakistan with Reference to Therapeutic Design and Therapeutic Application of Law|250
2|1 Introduction|251
2|2 Therapeutic Design and Application of Law (TDL and TAL)|253
2|3 TDL and TAL Analysis of the Pakistan Penal Code|254
2|4 TDL and TAL Analysis of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 and the Probation of Offenders Ordinance 1960|257
3|4.1 Probation|262
3|4.2 Court Controlled Probation|262
3|4.3 Death Penalty and Handcuffs|263
2|5 Legal and Judicial Education on TJ|264
2|6 Practicing TJ in Court|264
2|7 Conclusion|265
2|References|265
1|The #BlueWhale Challenge to the Indian Judiciary: A Critical Analysis of the Response of the Indian Higher Judiciary to Risky Online Contents with Special Reference to the BlueWhale Suicide Game|268
2|1 Introduction|269
2|2 The BlueWhale Game Phenomena in India|270
3|2.1 Deciding upon the Cause of Concern for Online Issues: A Challenge to the Judiciary|273
2|3 The BlueWhale Challenge to the Judiciary|278
2|4 Conclusion|283
2|References|284
1|The Responsive Judge: Comparative Perspectives of Korea and Japan|286
2|1 Introduction|286
2|2 Legal Culture of Korea and Japan|288
3|2.1 Korea’s Legal Culture|289
3|2.2 Japan’s Legal Culture|290
2|3 The Comparison of Constitutional Review in Korea and Japan|291
3|3.1 Korea—Judge’s Responsive Activism|292
3|3.2 Japan’s Less Responsive Supreme Court|300
2|4 Civil Litigation and Conciliation in Korea|305
3|4.1 Less Responsive to Civil Litigation|305
3|4.2 Statistic Trends of Civil Litigation|306
3|4.3 Relative Responsive Type of Court Mediation|308
2|5 Pro-responsive Type of Court Mediation in Japan|311
3|5.1 Responsive Civil Mediation|311
3|5.2 Conciliation of Summary Court|312
2|6 Conclusion|314
2|References|315
1|Mansfield, Atkin, Weinstein: Three Responsive Judges at the Nexus of Law, Politics, and Economy|319
2|1 Introduction|319
2|2 Somerset’s Case|321
3|2.1 Background|321
3|2.2 Chief Justice Mansfield|322
3|2.3 Outcome|323
3|2.4 The Snail in the Bottle|324
3|2.5 Lord Atkin|325
3|2.6 Outcome|326
2|3 Agent Orange|327
3|3.1 Background|327
3|3.2 Judge Jack Weinstein|328
3|3.3 Outcome|328
2|4 Common Factors|329
3|4.1 Philosophy of Law|329
3|4.2 Skill in Legal Technique|330
3|4.3 Perception of Public Interest as a Desire for Justice|331
3|4.4 Agony of Decision|333
2|5 Limits and Links|333
2|6 Conclusion|338
2|References|339
1|Index|343