Can justice be served online?
Jayne R. Reardon
I recently had an experience with online dispute resolution. It all came about when I clicked on an alluring ad for a face cream. I charged 4.95onmycreditcardandwithinafewdaysreceivedtheproduct∈themail.Myenjoymentofthesmoothandglowingeffectsofthefacecreamcametoanabruptendwhenthenextmonth’screditcardbillcamewithachargeforanadditional94.99.
Via email, I disputed the charge, asked for documentation showing I ordered or received the product, disputed the documentation of a recurring monthly charge that the company put forward, and appealed the denial of my dispute. Ultimately, I lost. The credit card company refunded me a portion of the charge to keep me as a customer, but I had to pay for a product I had not ordered and which I definitely did not receive.
could have filed a case ∈ small claims court. According to the National Center for State Courts 2015 report, 75 percent of the cases filed ∈ the state courts involved judgments of less than $5,200. In some instances, the costs of even initiating the lawsuit or making an appearance as a defendant would exceed the value of the case. And contrary to the traditional paradigm of civil litigation being competently handled by attorneys representing both parties, 76 percent of the cases studied ∈ the report had at least one party self-representing.
Trials have been dropping ∈ numbers, and although traditional court filings and trials may be down, disputes are not. As the authors of Getting to Yes asserted over three decades ago, “conflict is a growth industry.” Conflicts inevitably come with the territory of new products and services. As with all things related to the internet, they are coming at a faster rate. Disputes are also arising from the increased complexity ∈ relationships and systems being created and the larger volumes of data being collected, processed and communicated.
In 2012, eBay claimed it handled more than 60 million disputes between buyers and sellers by providing software that assisted the parties to negotiate a satisfactory outcome over 80 percent of the time. Alibaba, as of last year the world’s largest retailer, generating more revenue than Amazon.com and eBay combined, handles hundreds of millions of disputes per year.
That’s where technology enters the picture as a way to efficiently and equitably resolve disputes. The premise of the Digital Justice authors is that access to justice can be enabled by software and mouse clicks just as ∈ the old days, it was affected by the hours a court was open or how distant it was located from one’s home. Experimentation ∈ small claims online courts is happening ∈ the United Kingdom, British Columbia, the Netherlands and spottily ∈ the United States.
Online Dispute Resolution, proponents claim technology can also prevent disputes. What if, similar to a GPS system, parties could learn that the relationship was off track ∈ time to correct course before they were lost or the claim was fully erupted? There is a branch of study ∈ the ODR field called “dispute systems design” that challenges the assumption that we should focus on more efficient tools to address individual disputes on an ad hoc basis. This approach says that technology can be used to address and prevent disputes systematically.
By studying the data uncovered ∈ the dispute resolution processes, eBay has managed to uncover common sources of problems and to structure information and services on its site so that the problems do not recur. Another example of an online ODR system is the one established on Wikipedia. Alongside its dispute resolution efforts, Wikipedia focuses on dispute prevention to study patterns of disputes and effective resolution strategies, and for automatically detecting such problems as illegitimate editing of content and deleting such content immediately, even before it is reported by the users.
The private nature of ODR makes it difficult to document results or study patterns. How can precedent be established? How do users have a feeling of fairness? While exploring new systems of making the law work for our citizens, lawyers and judges need to make sure the values of the third branch are brought forward.
Historically, the public trial ∈ our society has been about not only resolving disputes between parties but also about education, healing and change. Trials can shine the light of justice on what otherwise may fester and grow ∈ the dark recesses of our world. Courts allow the voices of the voiceless to be heard. The public nature of our court system has been emblematic of our democracy.But if the brick-andmortar system is unworkable for the disputes of the online age—we must adapt. This is the time to adapt or be rendered irrelevant.
AT:http://www.abajournal.com/legalrebels/article/canjusticebeservedonline/
De acordo com o texto,
