Abstract
While courthouses often reveal a profound gap between the professed ideals of justice and their delivery, their designs supposedly symbolize the authority of the community over the individual and lend legitimacy to the discipline occurring within. This article considers what happens to the experience and legitimacy of justice when legal participants no longer enter the courthouse, but appear remotely by videolink. Drawing on empirical evidence regarding the use of videolinks in Australian courts, this article reveals current iterations of distributed courts ignore the important symbolic function of the courthouse as the home of justice and the presence of law.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
