Skip to main content
Open Book Publishers

4. Digital justice: Interactions and rituals in the virtual courtroom

Chapter of: Digital Humanities in the India Rim: Contemporary Scholarship in Australia and India(pp. 67–82)

Export Metadata

  • ONIX 3.1
  • ONIX 3.0
    • Thoth
    • Project MUSE
      Cannot generate record: No BIC or BISAC subject code
    • OAPEN
    • JSTOR
      Cannot generate record: No BISAC subject code
    • Google Books
      Cannot generate record: No BIC, BISAC or LCC subject code
    • OverDrive
      Cannot generate record: No priced EPUB or PDF URL
  • ONIX 2.1
  • CSV
  • JSON
  • OCLC KBART
  • BibTeX
  • CrossRef DOI deposit
    Cannot generate record: This work does not have any ISBNs
  • MARC 21 Record
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 Markup
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 XML
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
Metadata
Title4. Digital justice
SubtitleInteractions and rituals in the virtual courtroom
ContributorDavid Tait(author)
Meredith Rossner(author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0423.04
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0423/chapters/10.11647/obp.0423.04
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
CopyrightDavid Tait; Meredith Rossner;
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2024-11-06
Long abstractCourts have increasingly made use of video technologies to allow witnesses and defendants to take part in hearings. This use increased dramatically as a result of COVID-19. Not only did individuals appear on screens in physical courtrooms, but courts themselves sometimes went virtual. We examine what happens to interactions and rituals when the physical courtroom disappears. We compare the standard form of video conference based on isolating participants into boxes in a gallery, with an alternative approach, the metaverse court, which brings participants together into a shared space.
Page rangepp. 67–82
Print length16 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Contributors

David Tait

(author)
Emeritus Professor of Justice Research at Western Sydney University
Honorary Professor in POLIS@ANU, Research School of the Social Sciences at Australian National University
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1121-7702

Dr David Tait is Emeritus Professor of Justice Research at Western Sydney University and Honorary Professor in POLIS@ANU, Research School of the Social Sciences, Australian National University. He has led six experimental studies about court technologies and spaces, examining interactive visual evidence, remote witnesses, iPads for jurors, the prejudicial effect of the dock, distributed courtrooms (remote participants appearing in their ‘correct’ positions in the courtroom via video screens, with localised sound) and virtual courts. He is currently part of a project (in partnership with the Fraunhofer Institute and organised through the University of Montreal) developing an immersive virtual court platform for use in justice hearings and working out how this facility may impact on fairness, sense of presence and quality of communication.

Meredith Rossner

(author)
Deputy Director of the Research School of Social Sciences and Professor of Criminology at the Centre for Social Research & Methods at Australian National University
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4744-8502

Dr Meredith Rossner is Deputy Director of the Research School of Social Sciences and Professor of Criminology at the Centre for Social Research & Methods at Australian National University. Her research focuses on emotions, rituals, the built environment, and technology in justice practices. Past and current projects include investigations into the emotional dynamics of restorative justice, therapeutic courts, the role of courtroom design on access to justice, and the use of video technology in courts. Meredith has published widely in the field of restorative justice, including Just Emotions: Rituals of Restorative Justice (2013). She is on the editorial board of the International Journal of Restorative Justice, a member of the Canberra Restorative Community and the Oceania Network of Restorative Practice for Sexual Harm.

References
  1. Bandes, S. A., & Feigenson, N. (2021). Empathy and remote legal proceedings. Southwest Law Review 51, 20–39.
  2. Digital Humanities Institute, University of Sheffield. (2023). The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, 1674–1913. https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/
  3. Digital Panopticon, VDL Founders and Survivors Convicts 1802–1853. (n.d.). https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/VDL_Founders_and_Survivors_Convicts_1802-1853
  4. England and Wales, Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. (n.d.). Traditions of the Courts. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/history-of-the-judiciary-in-england-and-wales/court-traditions/
  5. Heinsch, M., Sourdin, T., Brosnan, C., & Cootes, H. (2021). Death sentencing by Zoom: An actor-network theory analysis. Alternative Law Journal 46(1), 13–19.
  6. Garapon, A. (2001). Bien juger: essai sur le rituel judiciaire. Odile Jacob.
  7. Garfinkel, H. (1956). Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology 61(5), 420–424. https://doi.org/10.1086/221800
  8. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Harold Garfinkel. Prentice-Hall.
  9. Goffman, E. (2017). Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203788387
  10. Goffman, E. (1959). The moral career of the mental patient. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes 22, 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1959.11023166
  11. Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry 18(3), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008
  12. Guéry, C. (2015). Justices à l’écran. Presses Universitaires de France.
  13. Landström, S., Granhag, P.A. & Hartwig, M. (2007). Children’s live and videotaped testimonies: How presentation mode affects observers’ perception, assessment, and memory. Legal and Criminological Psychology 12, 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532506X133607
  14. Massachusetts Court of Assistants. (2001). Records of the court of assistants of the colony of the Massachusetts Bay, 1630–1692. Internet archive. https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/records/item/372924-records-of-the-court-of-assistants-of-the-colony-of-the-massachusetts-bay-1630-1692-v-02
  15. McKay, C. (2018). The Pixelated Prisoner: Prison Video Links, Court ‘Appearance’ and the Justice Matrix. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315111506
  16. McKimmie, B.M., Masser, B.M., & Bongiorno, R. (2014). Looking shifty but telling the truth: The effect of witness demeanour on mock jurors’ perceptions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 21(2), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2013.815600
  17. McLennan, S. (2020, May 27). Singapore judge issues death sentence by Zoom. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/05/27/singapore-judge-issues-death-sentence-zoom
  18. Rossner, M., Tait, D., McKimmie, B., & Sarre, R. (2017). The dock on trial: Courtroom design and the presumption of innocence. Journal of Law and Society 44(3), 317–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12033
  19. Tait, D. (2018). Rituals and spaces in innovative courts. Griffith Law Review 27(2), 233–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2018.1537074
  20. Tait, D., & Tay, V. (2019). Virtual Court Study: Report of a Pilot Test 2018. Western Sydney University. https://courtofthefuture.org/publications/virtual-court-study/US Supreme Court, Deck v. Missouri. 544 U.S. 622 (2005).
  21. US Supreme Court. Brown v. Davenport. US 596. 20–826 (2022).
  22. Vrij, A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P.A. (2019). Reading lies: Nonverbal communication and deception. Annual Review of Psychology 70, 295–317. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103135
  23. Zimbardo, P.G., Haney, C., Banks, W.C., & Jaffe, D. (1971). The Stanford Prison Experiment. Zimbardo, Incorporated.