The controversy over the escapades of actor Gérard Depardieu has highlighted the condemnations and speeches of those who defend the actor and are outraged at the fact that he is being condemned “without even having taken the trouble to hear his version. We did not fail to recall how important it is to respect the presumption of innocence. On the other hand, we highlighted the importance of welcoming the words of victims and the fact that it is excessive to impose on them the endless delays which are the lot of the judicial process.
These abuses, regularly denounced when such a controversy arises, are partly maintained by a justice system which takes too long to produce the answers that we have the right to expect in a regime which recognizes the supremacy of the law. But we cannot seriously complain that lynching processes are replacing the judicial process if we persist in neglecting to do what is necessary to speed up its progress.
Indeed, the presumption of innocence is not immunity against the judgment that ordinary mortals may have on the actions and actions of an individual. The presumption of innocence guarantees that the judge only punishes when the conditions provided for by law are met. It is not forbidden to debate the merit of an accused and the plight of the victims.
Those who are concerned about the undermining of the presumption of innocence should put as much energy into demanding the acceleration of measures in order to align judicial time with the speed of circulation of information in the connected world. The discouraging slowness of the judicial process in fact fuels temptations to opt for public denunciations and other processes of “parallel justice” which are not burdened with the precautions characterizing the functioning of the courts.
The fundamentals of judicial processes were designed in a universe where information did not travel at the same speed as that which characterizes digital technology. For example, in the era of print, it could be rational to count deadlines in days and months. But when information circulates virally at the speed of light, one day is already an eternity!
We must provide ourselves with the means to accelerate the speed of the judicial process. Events or situations that happen online should be judged online and promptly. We must also take seriously the fight against the culture of “saving time” which sometimes rages among those who know that this is their only way to escape rigorous examination of their behavior by a judge.
The broken elevator
Guy Birenbaum and Vincent Ollivier wondered, in The world of December 31, “How can justice guarantee accurate information to citizens as well as a peaceful democratic environment if reason and truth wait in front of a broken elevator, when lies and hatred travel like rockets? “.
In a universe where it is possible to generate falsehoods and spread them at the speed of light, the authorities responsible for separating truth from falsehood, licit from illicit, must be equipped to act at the necessary speed. When we say that updating laws is an integral and essential component of the adaptation of our societies to technologies, these are the issues that we are talking about. It is irresponsible to imagine that everything can change, that everything can go faster but that legal processes can continue to move at the speed of the 20th century.e century.
We must invent innovative methods to examine the merits of the accusations and claims of those who are in conflict. It is good to support the development of artificial intelligence technologies. But a responsible state must also work hard to develop faster judicial processes. To this end, it is necessary, for example, to strengthen the capacities of organizations, such as the Cyberjustice Laboratory of the University of Montreal, which work on methods of resolving disputes that operate consistently with the conditions imposed by digital spaces. .
We cannot limit ourselves to denouncing the actions of those who disregard the “presumption of innocence” and tolerating the slowness of the mechanisms responsible for shedding light on worrying situations or on what happened to the victims. These processes take so long that they are neutralized by the multiple systems of “parallel justice” which operate without the hassle of hearing all the versions.
Delaying in modernizing judicial processes means resolving to endure more and more of these “parallel” processes which produce their “justice” according to interests arbitrated according to commercial logic.
If we continue to neglect doing what is necessary to speed up judicial time, it will be impossible to respond to the challenges imposed on us by the digital age. It will be a great gift for those who put up with arbitrariness. But the democratic balance risks being compromised.