Article
Adam Sharpe1, Chanakan Wichit2, Auraprang Pornpermpoon3 , Nattanun Somchoe3, Dhelltria Glinogo Garner3*
1Director of Learning, Metafuture School, Founder, Futurely, Bangkok, Thailand
2Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
3Thailand Institute of Justice, Bangkok, Thailand
Abstract
This report explores the intersection of youth engagement, technology, and the future of justice in ASEAN and Japan. Applying participatory futures methods, the study delves into the perceptions, insights, and innovative ideas of young people. The research reveals their deep understanding of societal challenges, their powerful sense of agency, and their potential as partners and thinkers who can help to ensure not just a technologically advanced but also a fair and equitable justice system.
Keywords
Justice, youth, scenarios, ASEAN, Japan
Introduction
As the world recovers from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the issue of universal access to justice remains unresolved. Escalating legal demands impose significant stress on justice systems, challenging their effectiveness, accountability, and accessibility. As technological advancements and digitization continue to reshape the global landscape, traditional methods aimed at enhancing access to justice and managing safety and security issues may no longer be adequate.
Vulnerable demographics, particularly children and youth, face unique obstacles in exercising their human rights. These challenges hinder their social development and well-being, increasing their vulnerability to victimization by criminal entities. The lack of emphasis on rule-of-law education and civic rights in school curricula could lead to these younger populations being uninformed about their rights and responsibilities, resulting in a gap in understanding practical aspects of justice accessibility. Moreover, when these vulnerable individuals, including children and youth, come into conflict with the law, their rights to a fair, safe, and impartial justice process must be safeguarded.
This report argues that in order to strengthen the rule of law in a rapidly changing world, it is crucial to engage young people. To do so effectively, futures thinking and participatory futures processes in particular are crucial. Futures thinking encourages transdisciplinary perspectives and solutions (Chen, 2020), fosters adaptability, creativity and resilience (Miller, 2018), and facilitates the design of strategic actions that can positively shape our future. This skill is critical for young people when addressing access to justice issues for several reasons. Justice systems are always evolving, influenced by technological advancement, demographic shifts, and changes in societal values. Futures thinking enables us to anticipate these changes, recognize the importance of access to justice in our futures, and formulate proactive responses. Furthermore, by imagining various possible futures, youth can make informed decisions in the present to shape a more equitable and just future, advocating for legal reforms, pursuing careers in justice-related fields, or using their votes and voices to support fair policies for example.
The Thailand Institute of Justice, in partnership with Japan’s Ministry of Justice and with substantial support from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), hosted the “ASEAN-Japan Special Youth Forum for Promoting the Rule of Law” in July 2023. This forum consisted of sixty youth participants from the ASEAN Member States and Japan who had the opportunity to advocate for access to justice reform. This report documents the findings from a virtual participatory futures workshop on access to justice designed to prepare these youth participants for their advocacy efforts. The workshop included a range of futures methods and tools included in the Six Pillars Approach to futures, a model that enquires into alternative and preferred futures and the worldviews and myths that underlie them (Inayatullah, 2005). The Polak game was also used to build participants’ futures literacy, the majority of whom had never experienced a futures workshop before.
History of Justice Futures
Futures thinking and foresight have been employed frequently in the past to examine and shape the sphere of justice, investigating elements like social equity, human rights, technological advancement, and legal structures. This section attempts to document highlights from a long history of futures and foresight being used to examine access to justice from the perspective of the international criminal court, national courts, justice ministries and departments, policing, environmental law, prisons, and beyond.
Particularly relevant to access to justice, the Hawaii Judicial Foresight Congress in 1991 explored the alternative futures of the courts. These futures included decentralized bottom-up justice, citizens as active consumers of justice, and green justice with a focus on community and environmental responsibility and solving one’s own disputes (Inayatullah, 1991). In the State of Victoria (Australia) increased sensitivity to the changing needs of the public emerged as a trend from scanning, particularly in the form of court and community outreach programs and making the courts more transparent. The community is seen first as a customer whose satisfaction and happiness is prioritised, and more importantly as co-partner in the design of judicial reform. These trends alongside increased use of technologies and rising awareness and recognition of the rights of disenfranchised persons including indigenous persons, women, children, and even future persons, could overwhelm the courts with cases without sufficient investment in capacity (Inayatullah, 2001).
Post-Covid, police forces in California used foresight to rethink the police in 2030, recognising electric cars as a potential disruption that would save tens of thousands of lives while bankrupting police forces reliant on traffic violations and driver arrests. Their ‘Thriving in the new normal’ scenario saw police forces adapt to a rise in domestic crime by establishing community teams composed of police officers, community service officers, code enforcement, family counseling, mediation and psychological services reps (Harrison, 2020).
When exploring alternative future scenarios of prisons, Inayatullah explored the possibility of community alternatives including restorative justice and community building. Electronic monitoring and bio-monitoring allow increased mobility and surveillance. Through the use of digital tagging, safe zones are created. Surveillance comes from neighbourhood residents and police. As much as possible, community reintegration is practised with the world view shifting from punishment to correction (Inayatullah, 2012).
These examples exemplify the use of futures thinking for envisioning and exploring various possibilities for access to justice. By presenting these possibilities, futures thinking allows justice systems to proactively strategize and adapt to potential changes, ensuring better preparedness. It also underscores the importance of evolving public needs and the roles citizens can play as co-partners in judicial reform, not merely as case numbers. Moreover, the anticipation of the effects of technological advancements and shifts in societal norms on justice systems allows for more equitable and efficient service provision. By considering disruptions like the widespread adoption of emerging technologies, foresight allows for the reinvention of traditional roles, such as those of police forces. Thus, futures thinking and foresight allow for proactive planning, innovation, and the creation of more resilient, responsive, and inclusive justice systems.
Polak Game
In order to engage a group of young people in a participatory futures process within a limited timeframe who are completely new to futures requires methods that are easy to understand and can encourage critical reflection and dialogue on how we see the future. The Polak Game also known as “Where do you stand?” offers an effective approach to introducing our images of the future as a property of both cultures and individuals, paving the way for more advanced tools and frameworks (Hayward & Candy, 2017). The game takes place on a 2×2 matrix with the vertical axis describing essence-optimism and -pessimism, with influence-optimism and -pessimism plotted on the horizontal. Participants were invited to think through how they felt about the future, placing their name in the axis.
Interestingly, all participants across the spectrum, regardless of whether they are optimistic or pessimistic about the future of justice access, felt empowered to effect change (Figure I). This signals a sense of agency and responsibility among the participants, despite the challenges and complexities they identify in the justice system.
Fig. 1: Polak Game Board
Those who are optimistic and empowered underline the need for optimism in the face of multiple challenges, such as political turmoil, poverty, and climate change. They demonstrate a recognition that optimism is essential to drive change and believe that their efforts can contribute positively to the justice system.
“Who will feel optimistic and empowered if not us? I do understand that we are all confronted by multidimensional challenges nowadays… In order to do something about this, we need to feel optimistic. Deep inside I need to ensure that I have an optimism.” Male, Indonesia
Despite their pessimism about the current state of the justice system, especially with regards to its interaction with technology, these participants feel empowered. They recognize the drawbacks of rapid technological change, such as the abuse of technology and the legal system’s inability to keep pace, but still believe that it’s not too late for change. This perspective points to a pragmatic approach: they see the problems but also the potential for solutions.
“From what I’ve seen I think there is a general lack of efforts by the government and courts to incorporate tech. I was thinking about how technology advances so much faster than law. I just feel pessimistic in the sense that law can’t keep up with our current society, the way it is developing. But I do believe it’s not too late to change, so that is where I feel empowered. The drive for change might be because I’m young.” Male, Japan.
They acknowledged the transformative power of technology but also its potential for misuse. While they credit technology with shrinking distances and facilitating connections, they also highlight its role in spreading disinformation and driving inequality. This suggests a nuanced understanding of the implications of technology.
“My pessimism kicks in with the fact that some of our leaders of today were able to acquire their seats by abusing technology. They perpetuated disinformation, fake news, among others, and I think that the abuse of technology has led to an educational crisis in which our history is even being revised. However, my empowerment is more premised on the fact that our generation is more capable of utilizing technology, that most of the time we were able to take part in policy making, now youth are more present… I am empowered to make change despite the fact the government here has lost its integrity.“ Male, Philippines.
Participants frequently mentioned the strength derived from belonging to a community or network. They emphasize the value of collaboration and the support that comes from working with others who share their goals. This indicates an understanding of the importance of collective action in driving change.
“I think it comes from the spirit of the network we have with us. I am new to this space, but having been selected to join, it makes me feel empowered. We have resources, we know others are advocating for this, so this makes us feel more empowered. I am not alone, I have my tribe with me.” Female, Malaysia.
Participants admit that their views of the future shape their present actions and decisions. For example, pessimistic participants tend to take a more realistic approach and are prepared for setbacks, while optimistic participants take an idealistic stance and remain hopeful of positive outcomes.
“I think it comes from a sense of fear, concern for what’s going on in the world. There’s something about just sitting there and just watching all this unfold around us, injustices that are prevailing, we the youth feel the need to do something about it. The future is where we’re going to live in, for ourselves and our children’s’ children. That’s why we feel we need to do something, and we need to do it now.” Female, Brunei.
The Polak Game provided a platform for participants to share their feelings about access to justice and their sense of empowerment, leading to meaningful insights about their perspectives and approaches to effecting change.
Emerging Issues Analysis
Emerging issues are potential disruptors of the future with minimal supporting data today. Focusing on these weak signals today often provides significant future advantages. To pinpoint these issues, we utilized the S-curve methodology (Molitor, 2003) as shown in Figure II. On the S-Curve’s right side, we find the problems we typically prioritize. In the center, there are observable trends backed by some quantitative data. To the left lie the emerging issues – events with low probability yet high disruptive potential that could shift our course. Molitor advises us to delve into these unknowns.
Fig. 2: Emerging Issues Analysis
While RFIDs, Deepfake technology, Extended Reality, Metaverse, data encryption, robotics, blockchain, virtual reality, drones and quantum computing all came up, the most popular choices were Artificial Intelligence, Chatbots, 3D printing, and online dispute resolution (ODR). Four groups were created to analyze each of these emerging issues using the Futures Wheel. Each group was facilitated by a young person who had been trained in futures facilitation. It was their first time facilitating with these methods and tools.
Artificial Intelligence
Participants felt that AI can be beneficial to justice access by creating tools for citizens such as online filing, consultation, and dispute resolution. However, much of their focus revolved around concerns about using AI in the legal processes, including bias and discrimination through bad AI training, job displacement, and privacy leaks (Figure III).
“We see that AI is a catalyst for misinformation… The rise in deepfake technologies for example can encourage identity theft, can fabricate and generate evidence which is very scary, and in criminal justice this can lead to wrongful convictions… This is definitely a problem that we may face more in the future.” Male, Japan.
Another first order impact was ODR, reducing the burden of litigation and increasing the speed of case resolution. While this could improve access to justice, participants were concerned removing all humanity and emotion from justice processes may lead to a harsher and less humane justice system.
“AI can streamline processes, improve access, and assist in the legal system, but it has to be carefully trained and used. Moreover, safeguarding data privacy and security has to be top priority if we are going to rely more on AI in the future.” Female, Indonesia
Fig. 3: Futures Wheel analysing artificial intelligence
Participants felt if AI is going to be an essential part of the justice process, there should be close oversight by humans to reduce any possible error and to maintain public trust in the future justice system.
“AI can be a very effective tool in the legal system, but it should never take the place of human interaction. Human judgment, empathy, and ethical considerations are still crucial to prevent any error or bias.” Female, Brunei
Ultimately, AI should be an assistant, not judge, jury, and executioner. Moreover, AI should level the playing field rather than accentuate inequality.
Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)
Participants felt that ODR will have positive implications on access to justice, making it easier to access legal services as users are able to seek legal advice with just a tap or click of a button on their digital devices (Figure IV). This will be time and cost-efficient since transactions are facilitated through digital platforms, utilizing the different modes of ODR may help reduce the time and resources needed in order to complete negotiations and discussions, and it may help overcome language barrier, unlike the traditional Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms which mainly rely on in-person or virtual human translators. ODR will employ the use of technological tools such as automatic response, closed caption or in-built automatic translation to help facilitate and streamline the dispute resolution process between two parties who speak different languages.
Fig. 4: Futures Wheel analysing Online Dispute Resolution
As we increasingly intertwine technology with our future, digital illiteracy becomes a pressing concern that urgently needs addressing. For countries transitioning to ODR, it’s crucial to tackle this issue. If not adequately addressed, many potential users might find ODR ineffective or unusable, limiting its future impact and utility. Furthermore, ODR can also pose a threat to people’s right to privacy and may endanger the confidentiality of personal data shared through online transactions. Truly, government support and funding are much needed to institutionalize and open up online modes of dispute.
3D Printing
3D printing’s key strengths are in evidence replication, customization (like tailored prosthetics for crime victims), applications to architecture (e.g., temporary courts), and cost reduction, making legal aids more accessible (FigureV). It was noted that 3D printing could benefit various criminal proceedings, such as forensic facial reconstructions. 3D bioprinting and food printing were also brought up, suggesting novel applications in forensics and sustainability, respectively.
Weaknesses centered around intellectual property concerns, safety, counterfeit evidence, and the need for technological expertise among legal professionals. 3D printing’s potential misuse in creating unauthorized replicas of patented materials or counterfeiting evidence was a significant concern.
Fig. 5: Futures Wheel analysing 3D printing
Opportunities included reduced production costs and the use of recycled materials. 3D food printing was seen as a way to lessen farming’s environmental footprint by reducing land use and waste emissions. However, threats like weapon production, legal and ethical challenges, imitation products, and copyright issues were identified.
Regarding the young people’s perspective, they recognized the potential benefits of 3D printing in making justice more accessible and efficient. They were excited about the customization possibilities, cost reduction, and practical applications in criminal proceedings. They saw value in the technology’s potential contribution to sustainability. While acknowledging concerns, participants believed they could be addressed through effective oversight and regulation, focusing more on the positive potential of 3D printing in the justice system.
Chatbots
Participants highlighted increased access to legal information and easier drafting of legal documents as potential first order impacts (Figure VI). This could have profound implications for human rights. Giving everyone access to better legal education and information is vital, as one participant shared:
“The government works for the people. But the thing is, particularly in fascist governments, the government may manipulate its people through the media to suppress the rights of the people. With better access to legal education, people will know their rights and how to fight back against such tyranny.” Male, Japan.
They then began exploring the second-order impacts, including the potential replacement of lawyers in court cases and overreliance on information leading to linguistic task delegation. Overreliance could greatly impact critical thinking, which might in the long run be bad for society because people do not have thinking skills anymore. Our ability to question the law will be impacted.
Fig. 6: Futures Wheel analysing ChatGPT
One participant raises concerns about potential job displacement for certain roles in the justice system, such as law professors and professionals involved in legal writing. As Chat GPT’s capabilities grow, previously human-performed tasks might become automated.
Scenario planning
Scenario planning empowers us by presenting various options and weaving narratives that assist participants in understanding and navigating complex situations. Acknowledging the futility of predicting the exact future of justice in ASEAN and Japan, this approach highlights the multitude of potential alternatives. These alternatives open up new pathways, enabling us to reclaim our sense of control and agency in shaping the future.
For the purposes of this scenario planning exercise, a 2×2 matrix was chosen with access to justice on one axis, and quality justice on the other. The purpose of this was to keep participants centered on the access to justice theme of the conference, and to increase the likelihood of outputs that would align well with future-oriented policy recommendations which would be presented to the ASEAN-Japan Special Meeting of Justice Ministers. After working on scenarios collectively in plenary, participants were divided randomly into breakout rooms with an assigned a facilitator for an initial 30 minutes. Brought back into plenary for presentations, participants were returned to breakout rooms for another 30 minutes for discussion and to formulate recommendations to ministers.
Chat GPT 4.0 was used to synthesise the data collected from participants and help formulate coherent and compelling narratives.
High access, high quality – “A Just, Accessible, and Efficient World”
In the year 2050, justice systems in ASEAN and Japan have undergone a massive transformation, shaping itself into a beacon of fairness, inclusivity, and efficiency. Through a careful combination of investment in education, technology and innovative evidence-based policymaking, we have been able to leap over the hurdles of bias, inefficiency, and inaccessibility that once plagued the system.
Machine learning and AI have become the backbone of the justice sector. Algorithms, carefully audited for bias, assist human judges in understanding complex legal nuances, thus speeding up trials and enhancing the quality of justice. Virtual courts have become a norm, bolstering ODR and ensuring that justice is only a click away. These tech-driven measures have not only made trials faster but also democratized justice by minimizing human errors and biases.
Through its commitment to innovation and flexibility, governments across the region have succeeded in fostering responsive policies and a viable, equitable mechanism for decision-making. CSOs have become the torchbearers of human rights advocacy, moving away from the central government regulation model, further fostering a culture of inclusion and justice in the education system.
Institutions have become more equitable and responsive to societal needs. As a result, legal services are now more affordable, with legal aid and financial assistance readily available. Moreover, digital technologies are equitably distributed, ensuring equal access to justice across various socio-economic classes, reinforcing a sense of safety and trust in the hands of justice.
Moreover, cutting-edge technology has been instrumental in detecting fake news and falsified evidence, further strengthening the integrity of the legal system. We have seen crime rates drop due to innovations in surveillance and predictive policing, driven by advanced AI algorithms.
Rehabilitation has taken a quantum leap, with the development of advanced centers focusing on restorative justice, leading to an overall decrease in recidivism rates. Inclusion and fairness have become a prominent feature of the justice system, and the feeling of safety and trust in the hands of justice is more prevalent than ever.
However, it hasn’t been a path devoid of challenges. As our reliance on technology grew, so did concerns about data security and privacy. These concerns have remained at the forefront of our journey towards a more just, accessible, and efficient world. Safeguards have been put in place to protect data and maintain public trust in the justice system.
While AI and technology have been instrumental in reducing socio-economic inequality, we have not lost sight of the importance of human interactions in the justice system. Transnational collaboration has been enhanced to tackle environmental issues and dispute resolution, fostering global solidarity.
Despite these advances, we remain vigilant against potential threats. One such threat is the inefficiency of bureaucratic systems resistant to modernization. Moreover, we continue to fight against corruption, a severe threat that undermines the integrity of legal institutions and societal stability. The battle is ongoing, but our unwavering commitment to transparency, process awareness, and a people-centered mindset assures us that we are on the right path.
High access, low quality: More is not always better
In the year 2050, a complex picture emerges as we look at the landscape of the global justice system. While there’s been considerable progress in increasing access to legal systems, the quality of justice has fallen.
The ease of access to legal mechanisms and ODR platforms has led to a floodgate of cases. This sudden surge has overwhelmed the system, with clogged dockets in courts across the region. The once slow trickle of cases has turned into a torrent, and the rush to resolve as many cases as possible has opened the door to arbitrary decision-making. Judges, counsel, and legal officers, in their quest for speed, have overlooked the nuances that guarantee fair trials. The high volume of cases has resulted in a significant number of errors leading to delays in resolutions and a surge in appeals. The need for speed has undermined the integrity and transparency of the judiciary, raising questions about the quality of justice being delivered.
Over time, these hurried judgments have begun to pile up, leaving a trail of undetected errors that might take years, even decades, to uncover and rectify. The courts have become a whirlwind of chaos and disorganization, focusing too much on speed and reach but losing a sense of direction and purpose.
The regulatory framework of the judiciary has not been able to keep up with this rapid escalation. Processes aren’t streamlined or monitored effectively, leading to a rise in corruption and a significant dent in accountability. Legal counsel, overwhelmed and outmatched by the sheer volume of cases, are unable to provide quality representation, leading to a sentiment that “everyone gets a lawyer… but a bad one.”
Consequently, the journey to justice often ends before it truly begins. Parties are stuck at preliminary steps, facing numerous roadblocks and rarely reaching the stage where justice is actually served. This scenario has given rise to a unique phenomenon, an emerging trend of learning law outside of the region, in search of better representation and fair trials.
Public trust in the justice system has seen a significant dip. Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms, once hailed as the future, are not yielding the right answers, forcing parties to invariably seek resolution in court. Legal services, once a noble profession, are now being perceived as a business enterprise, with the corporatization of justice taking hold. The motivation to seek justice has dwindled. Long delays in resolution reinforce the old adage: “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Low access, high quality – Justice for the Rich
The year 2050 is characterized by a paradox in the justice system – while the quality of justice is at its peak, the access to it remains limited. The main driving force behind this paradox is the escalating levels of income inequality, creating a chasm between the rich and the poor. As wealth has become a gatekeeper of justice, access to legal services is now largely confined to those who can afford it. The result is a system where fair trials and just decisions are available but remain out of reach for many.
Legal education and services have become a luxury only the wealthy can afford, thereby exacerbating the gap between the privileged minority and the majority with limited access. Access to justice has turned into a luxury, a far cry from its universal right status, with the needs and issues of the privileged taking precedence.
The perception of unfairness and limited access despite high-quality justice has led to a severe crisis of confidence in the system’s ability to serve the people effectively. The voice of the majority, unable to afford the steep price of justice, remains unheard, leading to a pervasive sense of injustice. “Justice for the rich!” is the clarion call for regional protests against rising inequality.
A daunting characteristic of this justice system is its gatekeeper – the paywall. Most information and services are privatized, access to which is granted only to those who can afford it. This ‘pay to play’ model of justice has caused a deeper fragmentation within the society, stirring the simmering pot of social conflict, making it even more difficult for people to understand and navigate the legal system, especially with complex new technologies and advancements.
The system also displays a profound bias towards white-collar crimes. This bias, an offshoot of financial gatekeeping, has led to selective representation and prosecution, favoring those with the means to navigate the system adeptly.
In a world where the quality of justice is directly proportional to the wealth of individuals, calls for reducing income inequality, improving the educational system, and lowering legal fees are gaining traction. There is a strong sentiment towards expanding legal education and awareness to empower individuals with legal knowledge and skills. Proposals for granting a universal basic income to improve people’s quality of life have also surfaced, hinting at an undercurrent of resistance and the will to reshape not just the justice system, but society itself.
Low access, low quality – Legal deserts
The year 2050 paints a bleak picture of a world where justice has become both inaccessible and of low quality. In this future, the justice system feels like a “ship adrift in a storm” – directionless, without a compass or a skilled navigator. Government policies lag behind the problems they should address, bureaucracy remains entrenched, and a change in mindset is desperately needed.
The decline of trust in the criminal justice system has resulted in the abuse of fundamental human rights, widening social inequalities and contributing to a surge in the crime rate. Marginalized communities bear the brunt of this systemic breakdown, suffering from a lack of access to justice and rehabilitative opportunities.
In this future, both the affluent and the poor find themselves unable to seek justice due to a poorly functioning government. The resulting increase in stateless individuals, exacerbated by climate breakdown, and higher recidivism rates cast long shadows over the societal landscape. The justice system, hampered by limited resources, struggles to disseminate information about rights and services, leaving many unaware and helpless.
Access to justice remains a significant challenge, with basic legal rights and knowledge of justice institutions hidden behind a shroud of secrecy and privilege. This lack of transparency, coupled with low public trust in political and justice systems, fosters chaos.
The complexity of AI’s involvement in policing, despite its potential benefits to judicial institutions, further widens the gap as the public finds it increasingly challenging to understand criminal procedures. Legal aid has eroded over time, and the privatization of legal services restricts access to justice only for the super-rich.
In this dystopian future, the most vulnerable are stateless individuals who struggle with environmental crises without the shield of a functioning justice system. Society, feeling the absence of fair and effective justice, retaliates against the system, adding to the prevalent social unrest.
The struggle extends to the education of future legal professionals, threatening the integrity of future generations as legal knowledge becomes harder to attain. Social inequality amplifies due to the lack of access to justice, affecting marginalized communities the most.
The failure of the justice system and the government results in both the rich and the poor being unable to seek justice. As a consequence, crime rates surge, recidivism becomes more common, and the abuse of fundamental human rights proliferates. The widening inequality pushes people towards self-representation, breeding a culture of “street justice”.
The erosion of justice has ripple effects on the environment, with climate issues becoming increasingly unaddressed due to the lack of environmental justice.
In this world, the need for a major overhaul in the justice system is clear. The year 2050 might be dystopian, but it’s a wakeup call for change.
History of Justice Futures
The scenarios made clear to participants the implications of both action and inaction now. Having spent time developing and analysing scenarios, each group was invited to make recommendations for justice ministers.
- Promote equal access to justice: Implement policies that ensure equitable access to justice for all citizens, regardless of income or social status. This includes providing free or affordable legal aid services and enhancing public legal education to improve understanding and navigation of the legal system.
- Leverage emerging technologies to promote access: As 3D printing becomes increasingly diffused across ASEAN and Japan in the coming years, use it to enhance engagement and education around the criminal justice system. This could include creating board games, courtroom models, and braille materials for a more inclusive and practical understanding of justice for law students and communities. This future portrays access to justice as more hands-on, visual, and interactive. Such initiatives will require international legal assistance, education for legal professionals about 3D printing, and comprehensive waste management and recycling systems.
- Address income inequality: Advocate for policies that address income inequality, which is often a barrier to accessing quality legal representation and justice. The provision of resources to promote learning mobility programs is recommended to provide educational opportunities, including technical and vocational training, for marginalized communities. Clinical legal education was seen as a way to bridge the gap between theoretical legal education and practical experience, allowing law students to provide legal services under supervision and help those in need.
- Increase transparency: Implement measures to increase transparency in the justice system. This may include open data initiatives, public access to court decisions, and clear, public-facing communication about how the justice system works. Applications and websites can be developed to simplify legal processes which allows for easy and convenient access for the public. Furthermore, such platforms can also be fitted with appropriate counterfeit and fact checks as well as identification systems in place such as ‘CAPTCHA’ to ensure all information presented to the public (including court procedures, processing times) are widely accessible and accurate. This ensures high levels of transparency as all information is publicly available, allowing a broader and more thorough understanding of the law and its procedures and also enables coherent and predictable dispute resolution decision making.
- Invest in judicial training: Prioritize the training and continuous professional development of judges, lawyers, and other legal professionals to ensure high-quality justice delivery. This should also include educating them on emerging technologies, such as AI, that could aid in their work. Improving the educational system to make it easier for people to become lawyers was seen as a potential solution to address the shortage of legal professionals and enhance access to justice.
- Justice literacy for all: Incorporate legal education into school curricula, organizing community workshops, and promoting justice literacy. Ensuring that everyone has access to education, regardless of their financial status, it becomes easier for individuals to navigate the legal system and seek justice. Promoting learning mobility programs for marginalized communities, including technical and vocational education, can provide opportunities for individuals who may not have access to proper education. By investing in and ensuring access to mobility programs, marginalized individuals can gain valuable skills and knowledge, bridging the education gap and enhancing their chances of accessing mobility programs.
- Regulate and harness AI and technology: Legal systems will eventually resort to the use of AI and digital devices to facilitate and manage their tasks. Justice ministers should develop clear regulations for the use of AI and other technologies in the justice system now to mitigate potential bias and misuse. At the same time, explore ways to leverage these technologies to make the justice system more efficient and accessible. Fundamentally, AI should be an assistant to justice, not a driver of justice. Chatbots can be a useful tool to address access to justice issues. To make chatbots more accessible, it was recommended to ensure that language barriers, such as English proficiency, do not hinder individuals from using AI chat tools. Additionally, ensuring the safety of chatbots involves addressing biases and errors that may arise from their use. Ongoing development, updates, and monitoring can help identify and rectify biases, making chatbots a more reliable and inclusive resource for accessing justice.
- Strengthen public trust: Implement measures that strengthen public trust in the justice system. This might include more community outreach, public education about the law and legal processes, and efforts to ensure the swift and fair resolution of cases. Additionally, take a strong stand against corruption within the justice system. This could include implementing stricter regulations, promoting transparency, and establishing robust mechanisms for reporting and addressing corruption.
- Promote alternative dispute resolution (ADR): Encourage the use of ADR methods, such as mediation and arbitration, to reduce court overload and provide faster, more accessible forms of justice. This could also help reduce the costs associated with traditional legal proceedings. Additionally, invest in high quality and secure ODR (ODR) platforms that are accessible and reliable.
- Reform bureaucracy: Strive to modernize and streamline bureaucratic processes in the justice system to make it more responsive, efficient, and adaptable to societal changes.
- Promote environmental Justice: Acknowledge and address environmental issues within the justice framework. Ensure the legal system offers protection and redress for individuals and communities impacted by environmental crises and climate change.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is imperative to involve young people actively in promoting access to justice. As illustrated by the exercises and discussions conducted during this workshop, participatory futures and foresight methodologies present promising avenues for achieving this goal. These methodologies engage young people not just as passive recipients of policy outcomes, but as active contributors to shaping all our futures.
Youth participants in this workshop demonstrated a profound sense of empowerment and an intrinsic motivation to effect change in their societies, regardless of their varying levels of optimism or pessimism about the future. They revealed a nuanced understanding of the challenges facing the justice system, from the rapid pace of technological change to the wide-reaching implications of social inequality. At the same time, they showcased a resolute belief in the potential for positive transformation.
Importantly, young people bring fresh perspectives, new ideas, and an idealistic yet pragmatic approach to problem-solving. As we saw, their view of the future significantly influences their current actions and decisions, demonstrating the power of forward-looking perspectives in driving immediate action. Harnessing this future-oriented mindset can enable us to reimagine and reshape the justice system for the better.
Moreover, the shared sense of community and the power of collective action was a significant outcome of this workshop. Young people’s inclination towards collaboration and networking amplifies their capacity for systemic change.
”I learned so much about criminal justice and I think that it is really important for us youth to open up meaningful conversation about this issue… not only because it affects us but it affects a lot of people as well. How do we question our status quo? Is this the best that we can have? We need to question things, not only to criticize them but to work really hard on ensuring that we deserve something great! There used to be no concept of human rights, everything starts with a dream, and today we get to talk about that dream: a dream of building a nation, a region, and a world with prosperity and justice.” Mohamad Male, Indonesia
Participatory futures and foresight methods offer not only a tool for engaging young people in promoting access to justice, but also a mechanism for empowering them as agents of change. By utilizing these methods, we can harness the energy, passion, and unique insights of young people, steering towards a future where access to justice is universal and equitable.
References
Chen, K. (2020). Visioning the Future: Evaluating Learning Outcomes and Impacts of Futures-Oriented Education, Journal of Futures Studies, June 2020, 24(4): 103–116
Harrison, B. (2020). The Great Reset – Policing in 2030. https://policefuturists.wordpress.com/2020/05/26/the-great-reset-policing-in-2030/
Hayward, P., Candy, S. (2017). The Polak Game, Or: Where Do You Stand? Journal of Futures Studies, December 2017, 22(2): 5–14.
Inayatullah, S. (1991). “Judicial foresight in the Hawaii Judiciary”. FUTURES October 1991.
Inayatullah, S (2001). “Scanning for Justice“, Melbourne, State of Victoria, Department of Justice.
Inayatullah, S. (2012). “Popular Culture and Punishment”, Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies (Vol. 2 2012), 56-58
Inayatullah, S. (2005). Questioning the future: Methods and tools for organizational and societal transformation. Tamsui: Tamkang University.
Inayatullah, S. (2015). Ensuring culture does not eat strategy for breakfast: What works in futures studies. World Futures Review, 7. 351-361. 10.1177/1946756715627373.
Miller, R. (2018). “Transforming the future: anticipation in the 21st century”. UNESCO. ISBN: 978-92-3-100268-7. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000264644
Molitor, G. (2003). Molitor Forecasting Model: Key Dimensions for Plotting the “Patterns of Change”. Journal of Futures. 8(1): 61-72