People’s Attitudes towards Technologies in Courts

Abstract

Courts are high-stakes environments; thus, the impact of implementing legal technologies is not limited to the people directly using the technologies. However, the existing empirical data is insufficient to navigate and anticipate the acceptance of legal technologies in courts. This study aims to provide evidence for a technology acceptance model in order to understand people’s attitudes towards legal technologies in courts and to specify the potential differences in the attitudes of people with court experience vs. those without it, in the legal profession vs. other, male vs. female, and younger vs. older. A questionnaire was developed, and the results were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Multigroup analyses have confirmed the usefulness of the technology acceptance model (TAM) across age, gender, profession (legal vs. other), and court experience (yes vs. no) groups. Therefore, as in other areas, technology acceptance in courts is primarily related to perceptions of usefulness. Trust emerged as an essential construct, which, in turn, was affected by the perceived risk and knowledge. In addition, the study’s findings prompt us to give more thought to who decides about technologies in courts, as the legal profession, court experience, age, and gender modify different aspects of legal technology acceptance.

Penerapan Sanksi Denda Tilang Elektronik Traffic Law Enforcement (E-TLE): Berdasarkan Undang-Undang No. 22 Tahun 2009 Tentang Lalu Lintas dan Angkutan Jalan

“…Pengaruh globalisasi di semua aspek kehidupan bermasyarakat saat ini tidak dapat dihindari dan semakin berkembang pesat (Wang, 2020;Park et al, 2021;Barysė, 2022;and Winter & Manheim, 2022). Faktor keinginan manusia untuk memenuhi kebutuhan hidupnya, menuntut setiap individu berusaha bergerak dari satu tempat ke tempat lain (Aman, 2015).…”

Algorithms in the court: does it matter which part of the judicial decision-making is automated?

“…because they lack expertise. Still, even without perfect knowledge, people may hold opinions and preferences over the usefulness of—and need for—technologies in the courts (see, e.g., Barysė 2022a , b ).…”