Search
Close this search box.

Justice Dashboard

Justice Dashboard

Search
Close this search box.

Delivering Justice in the COVID-19 Crisis:
Solutions and Interventions

We invite you to explore the views of thought leaders around the world

Photo by Thirdman from Pexels

What should preventative, constructive and informal interventions during the COVID-19 crisis look like?

What are the most effective models for delivering community justice?

What kinds of system change do these unprecedented circumstances most urgently demand? 

In a follow-up survey on delivering justice in the time of COVID-19, 85 thought leaders shared their views about these questions with us. These leaders come primarily from Uganda, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and Syria. Over half are lawyers, judges, or prosecutors, and 69% have over ten years of experience in the justice sector. 

Though by no means representative, the survey results give an impression of where these people-centred justice leaders will set their sights to deliver justice in the coming months and years. 

Thought leaders participated, coming from:
0
*hover for details
  • Uganda (22%)
  • Bulgaria (16%)
  • The Netherlands (13%)
  • Syria (11%)
  • Other (38%)
0%
have over ten years of experience in the justice sector

The thought leaders surveyed are increasingly open to judges expanding their role to facilitate dialogue and oversee fair solutions. As a group, they are positive about guided negotiation as a first step in procedures, problem-solving dialogue in courts, and court-ordered remedies that aim to repair harm. They also tend to believe that local and regional courts and community policing have the greatest potential to deliver community justice at scale in the current climate.

To improve the capacity of existing procedures and technologies, the thought leaders were most optimistic about video hearings, mobile technology, and online platforms. Updated laws of procedure and a greater investment in R&D will likely be needed to make way for innovative adaptation to the COVID-19 crisis and increase access to justice. 

On the whole, we find that the thought leaders surveyed are optimistic about delivering people-centred justice to the majority of the population in their respective countries despite the significant challenges that lie ahead.

01 

Preventative, constructive and informal interventions

In the first survey on delivering justice in the time of COVID-19, thought leaders made clear their belief that preventative, constructive and informal interventions have the greatest potential to resolve people’s present justice problems. Sanctioning and punishing were seen as less effective.

We asked the 85 thought leaders introduced above to take this one step further by reflecting on specific interventions. The sections that follow describe what they believe to be the most promising ways of reaching resolution in four key stages of any constructive justice process: meeting, respecting, shaping solutions, and restoring.

Meeting

Opening a channel of communication between the parties

Click here to load the graph.
It is being generated in real time. So, please bear with us.

Over half of the thought leaders surveyed said that all of the interventions provided would be likely or very likely to help in opening a channel of communication between the parties. They were most confident about making a guided negotiation before a court decision (to identify, resolve, and define remaining conflict issues) the default process. They were also very positive about inviting parties (including lawyers) to participate in a judge-led dialogue as a first step in civil and administrative procedures.

The least popular intervention was inviting the parties (including lawyers, prosecutors and victims) to participate in a judge-led dialogue as a first step in criminal procedures.

These results and the additional reflections provided indicate that thought leaders see clear value in bringing parties together to talk as a default process in civil matters. When it comes to criminal matters, they are more skeptical about the appropriateness of this approach. 

A handful of experts also remarked on the value of dialogues that are ordered or overseen by the court, as this “marries coercion and collaboration” and encourages the parties to take the process more seriously.

Respecting

Helping parties take one another seriously as human beings

Click here to load the graph.
It is being generated in real time. So, please bear with us.

Over half of the thought leaders said that all of the interventions provided would be likely or very likely to help parties take one another seriously as human beings and respect each other. The only exception was one-stop shop online platforms, which were seen as less valuable.

Facilitative mediation, a restorative justice process, and negotiation were considered the most promising interventions. These results suggest that thought leaders are more confident in processes involving face-to-face dialogue to facilitate and foster respect between parties than online platforms. This finding is striking given the COVID-19 climate, in which online platforms may be more accessible.

Shaping solutions

Exploring possible solutions to meet the needs and interests of the parties

Click here to load the graph.
It is being generated in real time. So, please bear with us.

Thought leaders’ views with regard to the interventions most likely to help parties shape solutions were nearly the same as their views regarding those most likely to facilitate and foster respect.

Again, over half of the thought leaders said all the interventions provided would be very likely or likely to enable the shaping of solutions, with the exception of one-stop shop online platforms.

And again, facilitative mediation and a restorative justice process were the most favoured interventions. In both of these processes, the parties involved are encouraged to generate their own solutions based on an understanding of one another’s interests and needs.

Restoring

Repairing harm and preventing future harm

Click here to load the graph.
It is being generated in real time. So, please bear with us.

Over half of the thought leaders surveyed said that all of the interventions provided – with the exception of circle processes –  would be likely or very likely to help parties repair harm and prevent future harm. They were most confident about court orders with remedies that aim to repair and prevent harm and restitution programs.

These results again indicate a preference restorative and dialogue-based interventions that are ordered or overseen by the courts rather than independent from them. The fact that over half of the thought leaders surveyed were “neutral” about the potential of circles processes may suggest that many were not familiar with the term.  

Overall, the thought leaders were clear in their belief that a wide range of interventions can facilitate constructive justice delivery. Interventions that involve face-to-face dialogue and are not entirely informal (in the sense that they take place within the formal justice system) are preferred over interventions facilitated online or in a criminal context.

02 

Community justice delivery models

In the first justice in the time of COVID-19 survey, we asked about the most promising justice delivery models in the COVID-19 crisis. Thought leaders from diverse regions and income-levels clearly favoured community justice.

This time, we asked thought leaders which community justice models they see as having the greatest potential to deliver the interventions highlighted in the previous section. We also wanted to know which were most likely to effectively scale.

The thought leaders indicated that houses of justice (centres where different disciplines coordinate their interventions) and regional or local courts were the most likely to effectively deliver community justice during the COVID-19 crisis. 

Click here to load the graph.
It is being generated in real time. So, please bear with us.

Regional or local courts and community policing were seen as having the greatest potential to be brought to scale to cover every community. These two community justice delivery models were also considered best suited for the COVID-19 climate, in which coming together physically and/or accessing technology is not always possible.

The lowest scoring community justice delivery models in all categories were religious courts and justices of the peace.

Click here to load the graph.
It is being generated in real time. So, please bear with us.

Click here to load the graph.
It is being generated in real time. So, please bear with us.

The results show a high level of faith in regional or local courts, houses of justice, and community police to deliver justice at scale during the COVID-19 pandemic and a healthy degree of skepticism about the capacity of religious courts and justices of the peace. This suggests that thought leaders are most confident about community justice delivery models that are connected to the formal justice system.

Other community justice service delivery models that were not included in the survey but were highlighted and considered promising by the thought leaders surveyed include: online platforms, local governance structures, mobile courts, arbitration centres, community legal organisations, paralegal services, Local Council Courts, and a range of traditional dispute resolution mechanisms.

03 

System change priorities

In the first justice in the time of COVID-19 survey, we asked thought leaders to identify the top three priorities for thought leaders responding to challenges related to the pandemic.

Three major system change priorities emerged: 

a framework for improving procedures and technologies in the courts;

the development and implementation of innovative delivery models;

adapting services and procedures to the COVID-19 climate.

We asked the 85 thought leaders what they believe is most needed to make these three priorities realities.

Improving procedures and technologies in the courts

Video hearings, information and advice via mobile technology and platforms supporting a two-sided contract or settlement to a conflict were considered most essential to a framework for improving procedures and technologies in the courts. AI-related technology – including AI-facilitated diagnosis and triage and AI-facilitated decision-making – were considered least important of the interventions provided. 

These results may reflect the reality that many courts around the world still lack basic technology needed to share information and settle conflicts remotely. For this reason, the use of AI to support procedures is generally seen as unrealistic or superfluous.

Click here to load the graph.
It is being generated in real time. So, please bear with us.

Developing and implementing innovative and accessible justice delivery models

To develop innovative justice delivery models, the following ideas are considered most necessary:

Laws of procedure that allow for rapid, independent certification and implementation of new and more effective procedures (instead of a political process to change laws of procedure);

Research and development into improved interventions and innovative delivery models before pilots are started. 

Revenue models that ensure financial sustainability with clear contributions by parties and government were considered less important.

As one expert pointed out, “research and development into improved interventions and innovative delivery models [is needed] before pilots are started.”

Taken together, the views of the thought leaders indicate that laws of procedure that allow for innovative newcomers to be certified complement and support justice R&D identifying what works. The financial sustainability of these innovative delivery models is considered secondary to leveling the playing field and improving the status quo.

Click here to load the graph.
It is being generated in real time. So, please bear with us.

Adapting services and procedures to the COVID-19 climate

Asked for their individual views on adapting services and procedures to the COVID-19 climate, thought leaders emphasised that new technologies supporting virtual justice delivery must be user-friendly: “with a human touch and input.” Video conferencing to facilitate remote hearings, electronic legal services and documents, and one-stop shop platforms where procedures and payments could be centralised online were mentioned as examples of this. The thought leaders also noted the importance of more accessible internet for fair and effective e-justice delivery.

In addition to new technologies, thought leaders called for greater adoption of health security measures and real time communication, including “more personal/informal contact via phone or email.”

Thought leaders also highlighted the need to allocate resources in a way that allowed for “greater de-formalisation and solutions at a local level.” Restorative community justice mechanisms and mobile courts were mentioned as ways of “taking justice to the people” and facilitating conflict resolution. 

Lastly, thought leaders called for victim-centred justice and legal protection for women and children. This included “providing mental health and psychosocial support for survivors, focus on counteracting stereotypes and stigmatization, and survivor-centred and gender-sensitive services and procedures.”

04 

Confronting risks, challenges and opportunities in the justice sector

In the first justice in the time of COVID-19 survey, we asked thought leaders what risks, challenges and opportunities they foresaw at the start of the global pandemic.

They identified a tension between opportunities for innovation in the justice sector brought on by social distancing on the one hand, and the risk that large segments of the population will be excluded from e-justice on the other.

Now that several months have passed since the crisis began, we asked thought leaders to share what they believe were the most promising ways of dealing with key risks, challenges and opportunities posed by the COVID-19 crisis in their countries.

The majority of thought leaders identified a realistic assessment of current access barriers as a baseline and improved access to services for target groups from there and remedying access barriers for specific vulnerable persons first, before implementing new procedures and interventions as key ways forward.

Click here to load the graph.
It is being generated in real time. So, please bear with us.

This suggests that thought leaders in the justice sector remain keenly aware of access barriers and the need to take them into careful consideration before implementing new technologies, procedures, or interventions in response to COVID-19. At the same time, only a quarter were in favor of focusing efforts and funds on (probably costly) measures for the 20% most vulnerable groups first, and letting the less vulnerable 80% of the target group cope with access barriers by themselves. 

This indicates that while they are aware of the significant challenges posed by the pandemic, thought leaders around the world remain optimistic about delivering justice to the majority of the population in their respective countries, and are not yet prepared to limit emergency measures to the most vulnerable.

About the authors

Isabella Banks, Justice Sector Advisor

Dr. Martin Gramatikov, Director Measuring Justice

Prof. Dr. Maurits Barendrecht, Director Research & Development

Share

Ideas and opinions

We want to hear from you

Your opinion, thoughts and ideas are important for us! 

Feel free to share them through the form.

Table of Contents

The graphs on this page are being generated in real-time using our big data storage solutions. Loading time might vary based on the quality of your internet connection.

Justice Dashboard

The Justice Dashboard is powered by HiiL. We deliver user-friendly justice. For information about our work, please visit www.hiil.org

Contact us

The Hague Institute for
Innovation of Law
Tel: +31 70 762 0700
E-mail: info@hiil.org

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin Instagram Youtube

Navigation

© 2024 HiiL
Privacy