2 The Data Revolution in Justice 29 risks to the effective delivery of justice throughout the world. In such a context, data systems should inform effective planning to prepare the human and physical capital that might be needed to address a future spike in cases. Machine learning tools–or even basic data analysis–may allow to estimate or predict future caseload, understand its regional variation, and identify the main reasons for adjournments. Data may also be used to understand the level of risk and urgency that a case has for the parties involved, and thus effectively prioritize cases. Data-informed decision-making therefore becomes crucial as the risk of court congestion increases during and after the pandemic.

Data-driven technologies may also be used to bring courts closer to citizens, making them more efficient and increasing trust in the institutions. For instance, given the limitations for in-person services in courts, the Chilean judiciary has developed a digital platform, Conecta, which allows citizens to access courts’ services through a video call, chat or WhatsApp. Conecta’s goal is to facilitate access to court services for the general population, as well as to generate greater confidence in the justice system among citizens. In addition, the platform aims to optimize resources that can reduce the workload of court officials. By bringing different data sources together in one platform, Conecta allows courts to effectively respond to citizens’ queries, share updates on their cases, and provide a more efficient service to litigants.

Technologies can bring this opportunity to the next level, for instance, by introducing virtual courts to resolve fast or urgent matters. Before the pandemic, Canada introduced the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT), which is an online tribunal that allows online dispute resolution, mostly related to small claims, property disputes and traffic accidents. Other countries such as India, Pakistan, and South Africa have rapidly introduced virtual courts to resolve urgent matters as a result of the pandemic. These technologies filled in a crucial gap in access to justice as courts closed, yet they may also bring risks to effective dispute resolution going forward. For example, a study in the United States finds that the switch to video in bail hearings in Cook County led to an average increase of 51% in overall bail amounts (Diamond et al., 2010). A rigorous evaluation of the trade-offs between faster and–potentially–more accessible justice, on the one hand, and the risks associated with online communication, cyber-security, and disparities in access, on the other, should be undertaken before adopting these technologies going forward.

The data resulting from this switch to digital systems may also open new opportunities. For instance, recordings of online hearings represent another method to evaluate and understand biases in judicial decisions. Using court recordings and 3D Virtual Reality technology to alter the defendants’ race, Bielen, Marneffe, and N. Mocan (2018) conducted a study to understand courtroom biases. The authors found that while evaluators are harsher towards defendants of their own race during the guiltinnocence decision, in the sentencing phase they tend to be more lenient towards defendants of their own race. In terms of overall bias, it was found that minorities are more likely to get convicted and are given stiffer punishments on conviction. Thus, recordings of online hearings can be leveraged to understand aspects such as racial or gender bias in hearings, and to explore potential solutions. These data may also be used to develop ways of improving the effectiveness and quality of hearings, as well as to address deficits in communication and equal representation.

One of the most salient problems facing legal systems around the world is still the lack of access to formal justice mechanisms. During the pandemic, those without legal representation remain defenseless against criminal activities. In a recent briefing, the New York University Center on International Cooperation (CIC) articulates the three factors contributing to the global justice gap: extreme conditions of injustice, including slavery, statelessness, or insecurity; unreported civil or administrative justice problems that cannot be resolved; and lack of identity or proof of property ownership that result in legal exclusion (Steven and De Langen, 2020). For justice systems to be more conscious of the gap’s human dimensions, the CIC calls for the collection of more person-centered justice data emphasizing the legal needs and victimization of the poorest and most disadvantaged members of