Power Distance between Judges and Witnesses and Judicial Innovations: Preliminary Innovation Ideas from Theoretical and Empirical Research

Michał Dudek; Mateusz Stępień

doi:10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1114

Autores/as

Michał Dudek Department of Sociology of Law, Faculty of Law and Administration, Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland
Mateusz Stępień Department of Sociology of Law, Faculty of Law and Administration, Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1114

Palabras clave:

distancia de poder, jueces, testigos, interacciones en los tribunales, innovación judicial

Resumen

El objetivo del artículo es trazar un abordaje original al tema de las innovaciones judiciales, en comparación con conceptualizaciones anteriores o programas reales de innovación. El acercamiento propuesto fluye a partir de un proyecto teórico y empírico más amplio relacionado con la conceptualización, en comparación con la concepción de Geert Hofstede de la distancia de poder y su aplicación a la interacción en los tribunales, sobre todo entre jueces y testigos. Primero, el artículo clarifica cuidadosamente la distancia de poder reconceptualizada subyacente y la investigación empírica basada en ella y centrada en la interacción entre juez y testigo. En consecuencia, se presenta la conceptualización propuesta de innovaciones judiciales, con una explicación de sus supuestos y con ejemplos concretos. Sobre el trasfondo de otros estudios y programas de innovación judicial, se aduce que esta propuesta no sólo es mucho más clara en teoría y conceptos, sino que, lo que es más importante, es mucho más práctica, por cuanto amplifica de forma significativa la perspectiva sobre posibles avances en sistemas judiciales, y ayuda a generar nuevas ideas para innovar.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Metrics

Views 353
Downloads:
PDF (English) 510

Biografía del autor/a

Michał Dudek, Department of Sociology of Law, Faculty of Law and Administration, Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland

Michał Dudek - (PhD in Law) Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology of Law, Faculty of Law and Administration, Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6294-6027

Mateusz Stępień, Department of Sociology of Law, Faculty of Law and Administration, Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland

Mateusz Stępień - (Habilitation in Law) Professor, Department of Sociology of Law, Faculty of Law and Administration, Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1124-8955

Citas

Barendrecht, M., et al., 2018. Understanding Justice Needs: The Elephant in the Courtroom [online]. The Hague Institute for Innovation of Law. Available from: https://www.hiil.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/HiiL-Understanding-Justice-Needs-The-Elephant-in-the-Courtroom.pdf [Accessed 8 November 2019].

Bednarek, G.A., 2014. Polish vs. American Courtroom Discourse: Inquisitorial and Adversarial Procedures of Witness Examination in Criminal Trials [online]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137414250 [Accessed 8 November 2019].

Bladowski, B., 2013. Metodyka pracy sędziego cywilisty [Methodology of Judge’s Work in Civil Cases]. 4th ed. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.

Blake, N., 2019. Understanding Courts. A Report by JUSTICE [online]. London: JUSTICE. Available from: https://2bquk8cdew6192tsu41lay8t-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Understanding-Courts.pdf [Accessed 8 November 2019].

Botero, J.C., et al., 2003. Judicial Reform. The World Bank Research Observer [online], 18(1), 61-88. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkg005 [Accessed 11 December 2019].

Bowen, P., and Whitehead, S., 2013. Better Courts: Cutting Crime Through Court Innovation [online]. London: New Economics Foundation / Centre for Justice Innovation. Available from: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Better%20Courts.pdf [Accessed 8 November 2019].

Burnett, A., and Badzinski, D.M., 2005. Judge Nonverbal Communication on Trial: Do Mock Trial Jurors Notice?. Journal of Communication [online], 55(2), 209-224. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02668.x [Accessed 8 November 2019].

CBOS, 2017. Evaluation of the judiciary [online]. Warsaw: Centrum Badania Opinii Publicznej [The Public Opinion Research Center]. Available from: https://www.cbos.pl/EN/publications/reports/2017/031_17.pdf [Accessed 8 November 2019].

Clarke, D., 2014. Judicial innovation in Chinese corporate law [online]. In: J.O. Haley and T. Takenaka, eds., Legal Innovations in Asia: Judicial Lawmaking and the Influence of Comparative Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 259-272. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783472796.00024 [Accessed 11 December 2019].

Conley, J.M., and O’Barr, W.M., 1990. Rules versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse. Chicago / London: The University of Chicago Press.

Dahlberg, L., 2009. Emotional Tropes in the Courtroom: On Representation of Affect and Emotion in Legal Court Proceedings. Law and Humanities [online], 3(2), 175-205. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/17521483.2009.11423767 [Accessed 8 November 2019].

de Londras, F., 2017. In defense of judicial innovation and constitutional evolution [online]. In: L. Cahillane, J. Gallen and T. Hickey, eds., Judges, Politics and the Irish Constitution. Manchester University Press, 9-28. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7228/manchester/9781526114556.003.0002 [Accessed 8 November 2019].

de Savornin Lohman, A.F., and van Straalen, J., 2018. Sustainable Justice, A Social Responsible Focus on Innovation in Justice [online]. In: T. Sourdin and A. Zariski, eds., The Responsive Judge: International Perspectives. Singapore: Springer, 143-171. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1023-2_6 [Accessed 8 November 2019].

Eisenberg, D.T., 2016. Reflections on “Innovations in Family Dispute Resolution”. Maryland Law Review Endnotes [online], 75, 1-8. Available from: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2564&context=fac_pubs [Accessed 8 November 2019].

Feeley, M.M., 2013. Court Reform on Trial: Why Simple Solutions Fail. With new foreword by Greg Berman. New Orleans, LA: Quid Pro Books.

Freiberg, A., 2004. Innovations in the Court System [online]. Conference Paper. Melbourne: Crime in Australia: International Conference, 29-30 November 2004. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/7107106/INNOVATIONS_IN_THE_COURT_SYSTEM [Accessed 8 November 2019].

Godin, B., 2015. Innovation: A Study in the Rehabilitation of a Concept. Contributions to the History of Concepts [online], 10(1), 45-68. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3167/choc.2015.100103 [Accessed 8 November 2019].

Gold LaGratta, E., 2015. Procedural Justice: Practical Tips for Courts [online]. New York: Center for Court Innovation. October. Available from: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/P_J_Practical_Tips.pdf [Accessed 8 November 2019].

Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., and Minkov, M., 2010. Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. Revised and expanded 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Krajowa Szkoła Sądownictwa i Prokuratury [Polish National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution], 2018. Program Aplikacji Sędziowskiej [Judicial Application Program] [online]. Available from: https://www.kssip.gov.pl/sites/default/files/program_aplikacji_sedziowskiej_0.pdf [Accessed 8 November 2019].

Lepore, L., Borrello, L., and Alvino, F., 2012. ICT and Judicial Administration: A Model for the Classification of E-Justice Innovations [online]. In: M. De Marco et al., eds., Information Systems: Crossroads for Organization, Management, Accounting and Engineering. Berlin: Springer, 339-347. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2789-7_38 [Accessed 8 November 2019].

Machura, S., 2007. Lay Assessors of German Administrative Courts: Fairness, Power-Distance Orientation, and Deliberation Activity. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies [online], 4(2), 331-363. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00091.x [Accessed 8 November 2019].

Marks, A., 2016. What is a Court? A Report by JUSTICE [online]. London: JUSTICE. Available from: https://2bquk8cdew6192tsu41lay8t-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/JUSTICE-What-is-a-Court-Report-2016.pdf [Accessed 8 November 2019].

Miller, K., 2015. Disruption, Innovation and Change: The Future of the Legal Profession [online]. Report. Law Institute Victoria, December. Available from: https://www.liv.asn.au/Flipbooks/Disruption--Innovation-and-Change--The-Future-of-t.aspx [Accessed 8 November 2019].

Mulcahy, L., 2011. Legal Architecture: Justice, Due Process and the Place of Law [online]. Abingdon: Routledge. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203836248 [Accessed 11 December 2019].

Nakata, C., ed., 2009. Beyond Hofstede: Culture Frameworks for Global Marketing and Management [online]. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230240834 [Accessed 8 November 2019].

Ostrom, B.J., et al., 2007. Trial Courts as Organizations. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Pałecki, K., 2003. Wprowadzenie do normatywnej teorii władzy politycznej [Introduction to normative theory of political power]. In: B. Szmulik and M. Żmigrodzki, eds., Wprowadzenie do nauki o państwie i polityce [Introduction to science on state and politics]. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 183-217.

Richardson, E., Spencer, P., and Wexler, D., 2016. The International Framework for Court Excellence and therapeutic jurisprudence: Creating excellent court and enhancing wellbeing. Journal of Judicial Administration, 25, 148-166.

Roach Anleu, S., et al., 2016. Observing judicial work and emotions: using two researchers. Qualitative Research [online], 16(4), 375-391. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794115579475 [Accessed 8 November 2019].

Samborski, E., 2013. Zarys metodyki pracy sędziego w sprawach karnych [An Outline of Methodology of Judge’s Work in Criminal Cases]. 6th ed., update by W. Kotowski. Warsaw: LexisNexis.

Senge, P.M., 2006. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Revised and updated ed. New York / London / Toronto / Sydney / Auckland: Doubleday.

Senge, P.M., et al., 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York / London / Toronto / Sydney / Auckland: Doubleday.

Świecki, D., 2012. Metodyka pracy sędziego w sprawach o wykroczenia [Methodology of Judge’s Work in Offense Cases]. 2nd ed. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.