I read with interest your reply to me about your work modeling legal
procedures in the Dutch asylum system. It sounds like you have a good
dynamic policy problem and are addressing it at the appropriate levels of
aggregation and detail.
We do some things that sound similar, in the group support modeling we do
in areas of social welfare -- mental health and jobs, probations and
corrections, welfare reform, foster care, and the like. Most of our
modeling in these group workshops does not progress to full blown system
dynamics studies with intriguing policy implications. Were usually
helping a group to get its thinking together in a one- or two-day workshop.
The welfare reform work progressed to a serious model, however.
Ill be interested to hear more about your work as it proceeds. Will you
be attending the 1996 System Dynamics Conference in Cambridge,
Massachusetts?
Best wishes for the New Year...
...GPRichardson
.............................................................................
George P. Richardson G.P.Richardson@Albany.edu
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy GR383@cnsvax.albany.edu
State University of New York at Albany Phone: 518-442-3859
Albany, NY 12222 FAX: 518-442-3398
............................................................................
modelling of legal procedures
-
GR383@cnsvax.albany.edu (George
- Junior Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
-
GR383@cnsvax.albany.edu (George
- Junior Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
modelling of legal procedures
In a previous note Carolus Grutters asked about work in the "modelling of
legal procedures."
What are the dynamics of interest in this area?
.............................................................................
George P. Richardson G.P.Richardson@Albany.edu
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy GR383@cnsvax.albany.edu
State University of New York at Albany Phone: 518-442-3859
Albany, NY 12222 FAX: 518-442-3398
............................................................................
legal procedures."
What are the dynamics of interest in this area?
.............................................................................
George P. Richardson G.P.Richardson@Albany.edu
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy GR383@cnsvax.albany.edu
State University of New York at Albany Phone: 518-442-3859
Albany, NY 12222 FAX: 518-442-3398
............................................................................
modelling of legal procedures
I mentioned in a previous note my work on the modeling of legal procedures.
George Richardson asked in response:
>What are the dynamics of interest in this area?
Ill try to formulate a short answer to this question.
1. Using a system-dynamic approach of a certain process implies getting
insight into, and an overview of, that process.
As far as a legal procedure is concerned, little is known about any
procedure as a whole. One of the main characteristics of the legal domain
plays an important role here, namely the separation of powers and the
existence of checks and balances.
The consequence of this is that cooperation between judiciary, legislator
and executive is often confused with dependence and is seen as incompatible
with this separation.
This results in a situation in which relevant information is not, or only
partially, available to those who might need that information. One might
say that this is a consequence of preventing a Big Brother effect, or just
the result of bureaucracy. The fact remains, however, that insight in the
relations and interdependencies of different actions in legal procedures is
at least problematic.
2. Legal procedures resemble - at first sight - business or administrative
procedures. There are, however, at least two interesting differences.
The first difference is that legal procedures as such are far more
important than the result.
Justice is characterized by its procedure, by its way of dealing with
people, not just by the outcome of a procedure. In other words, a just
procedure is the result of justice, whereas administrative or business
procedures are only necessary obstacles to achieve a certain result.
Otherwise, justice could be done more efficiently by organizing a lottery
or by throwing dices.
Therefore, legal constraints are part of the system and in that perspective
the outcome of a just and legal procedure is irrelevant in terms of
justice. Thus, legal constraints are, in a way, comparable to security or
quality checks in a production line, and may be regarded as vital parts,
which should not be avoided but handled with care.
A second difference is the possibility of following different routes
generating similar outcomes, or following the same route with different
results, which complicates the attempt to get an overview of the whole
procedure.
Lawyers are not interested in this type of roadmap overview. They are
trained to analyse a specific given route until a certain point and will
advise on how to proceed from the viewpoint of their clients interest. The
process of analyzing all possible routes from start to finish is therefore,
in general, unknown to lawyers. By contrast, this type of information is
very relevant to policy makers and those involved in drafting legislation.
If I had to use a metaphor, I would say that the activities of lawyers (in
gereral, including policy makers) resemble the work of a traffic policeman,
determining the best route for each car that comes along. However, they
might profit from the use of tools enabling them to look on their work as a
traffic map designer or planner.
3. To be more precise, my current research concerns the modelling of the
Dutch asylum procedure. Within this complex procedure a large number of
officials of different organizations play a role.
Simply put, there is a quantity of asylum requests which has to be handled,
resulting in (mainly) granting or denying the request. Between start and
finish of this procedure there are dozens of different routes.
Within our present model we have defined a number of seperate but
interconnected and related actors, such as policy, legislation,
staff-capacity, housing capacity.
Most - if not all - of these actors have to act according to certain rules
which have, one way or another, a certain time limit. Meaning that, for
instance, even when nothing is done at a certain point in a legal procedure
a particular legal effect occurs.
4. The combination of limited resources, limited capacity, a lack of
overview and insight, the existence of various backlogs, and the need of
having certain (legal) checks and balances, makes it rather difficult to
change policy and or legislation in order to eliminate or deminish the
problems in (legal) practice.
That is why I presume that a SD approach of a legal domain might provide -
praticular policy makers - a useful instrument to investigate the dynamics
of a certain domain. Subsequently such an insight might enable these policy
makers to improve legal procedures as a means of "generating" justice.
They might get some feed back in answering difficult questions such as,
what can we do (change) in this particular procedure in order to avoid or
resolve that (certain) problem.
In a most optimistic approach one could expect that the use of this type of
tools could both improve "just" procedures as well as their efficiency and
effectiveness.
Besides, policy makers would then be able to simulate the results of their
proposed changes, rather then experimenting in real practice at the expense
of vulnerable people, (such as asylum seekers).
++++++++++++++++
Carolus Grutters
Recht en Informatica Law and IT
Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid Faculty of Law
KU Nijmegen, NL University of Nijmegen
postbus 9049 p.o.box: 9049
6500 KK Nijmegen zipcode: 6500 KK Nijmegen
The Netherlands
tel: +31 (0)24-36.15.701
fax: +31 (0)24-36.16.145
email: carolus@jur.kun.nl
George Richardson asked in response:
>What are the dynamics of interest in this area?
Ill try to formulate a short answer to this question.
1. Using a system-dynamic approach of a certain process implies getting
insight into, and an overview of, that process.
As far as a legal procedure is concerned, little is known about any
procedure as a whole. One of the main characteristics of the legal domain
plays an important role here, namely the separation of powers and the
existence of checks and balances.
The consequence of this is that cooperation between judiciary, legislator
and executive is often confused with dependence and is seen as incompatible
with this separation.
This results in a situation in which relevant information is not, or only
partially, available to those who might need that information. One might
say that this is a consequence of preventing a Big Brother effect, or just
the result of bureaucracy. The fact remains, however, that insight in the
relations and interdependencies of different actions in legal procedures is
at least problematic.
2. Legal procedures resemble - at first sight - business or administrative
procedures. There are, however, at least two interesting differences.
The first difference is that legal procedures as such are far more
important than the result.
Justice is characterized by its procedure, by its way of dealing with
people, not just by the outcome of a procedure. In other words, a just
procedure is the result of justice, whereas administrative or business
procedures are only necessary obstacles to achieve a certain result.
Otherwise, justice could be done more efficiently by organizing a lottery
or by throwing dices.
Therefore, legal constraints are part of the system and in that perspective
the outcome of a just and legal procedure is irrelevant in terms of
justice. Thus, legal constraints are, in a way, comparable to security or
quality checks in a production line, and may be regarded as vital parts,
which should not be avoided but handled with care.
A second difference is the possibility of following different routes
generating similar outcomes, or following the same route with different
results, which complicates the attempt to get an overview of the whole
procedure.
Lawyers are not interested in this type of roadmap overview. They are
trained to analyse a specific given route until a certain point and will
advise on how to proceed from the viewpoint of their clients interest. The
process of analyzing all possible routes from start to finish is therefore,
in general, unknown to lawyers. By contrast, this type of information is
very relevant to policy makers and those involved in drafting legislation.
If I had to use a metaphor, I would say that the activities of lawyers (in
gereral, including policy makers) resemble the work of a traffic policeman,
determining the best route for each car that comes along. However, they
might profit from the use of tools enabling them to look on their work as a
traffic map designer or planner.
3. To be more precise, my current research concerns the modelling of the
Dutch asylum procedure. Within this complex procedure a large number of
officials of different organizations play a role.
Simply put, there is a quantity of asylum requests which has to be handled,
resulting in (mainly) granting or denying the request. Between start and
finish of this procedure there are dozens of different routes.
Within our present model we have defined a number of seperate but
interconnected and related actors, such as policy, legislation,
staff-capacity, housing capacity.
Most - if not all - of these actors have to act according to certain rules
which have, one way or another, a certain time limit. Meaning that, for
instance, even when nothing is done at a certain point in a legal procedure
a particular legal effect occurs.
4. The combination of limited resources, limited capacity, a lack of
overview and insight, the existence of various backlogs, and the need of
having certain (legal) checks and balances, makes it rather difficult to
change policy and or legislation in order to eliminate or deminish the
problems in (legal) practice.
That is why I presume that a SD approach of a legal domain might provide -
praticular policy makers - a useful instrument to investigate the dynamics
of a certain domain. Subsequently such an insight might enable these policy
makers to improve legal procedures as a means of "generating" justice.
They might get some feed back in answering difficult questions such as,
what can we do (change) in this particular procedure in order to avoid or
resolve that (certain) problem.
In a most optimistic approach one could expect that the use of this type of
tools could both improve "just" procedures as well as their efficiency and
effectiveness.
Besides, policy makers would then be able to simulate the results of their
proposed changes, rather then experimenting in real practice at the expense
of vulnerable people, (such as asylum seekers).
++++++++++++++++
Carolus Grutters
Recht en Informatica Law and IT
Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid Faculty of Law
KU Nijmegen, NL University of Nijmegen
postbus 9049 p.o.box: 9049
6500 KK Nijmegen zipcode: 6500 KK Nijmegen
The Netherlands
tel: +31 (0)24-36.15.701
fax: +31 (0)24-36.16.145
email: carolus@jur.kun.nl