Power Distance between Judges and Witnesses and Judicial Innovations
Preliminary Innovation Ideas from Theoretical and Empirical Research
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1114Mots-clés :
power distance, judges, witnesses, courtroom interactions, judicial innovationsRésumé
The aim of the paper is to outline a new original approach to judicial innovations, in comparison to the previous conceptualizations or actual innovation agendas. The proposed approach flows from larger theoretical and empirical project concerned with the reconceptualized, in comparison to Geert Hofstede’s, understanding of power distance and its application to courtroom interactions, especially between judges and witnesses. First, the paper carefully clarifies the underlying reconceptualized power distance and empirical research based on it, focused on judge-witness courtroom interactions. Subsequently, the proposed conceptualization of judicial innovations is presented, its assumptions explained and particular examples provided. Against the background of other judicial innovations studies and agendas, it is argued that this proposal is not only much more theoretically and conceptually clear, but, even more importantly, much more practical, in a sense that it significantly widens perspective on the possible advancements in judicial systems and helps in generating innovation ideas.
Téléchargements
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF (English) 433
Références
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.
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
(c) Tous droits réservés Michał Dudek, Mateusz Stępień 2020
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
