Abstract

Abstract Although remote criminal proceedings have existed in Lithuania for some time, they have never been used as extensively as during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic demonstrated that remote criminal proceedings could help prevent the spread of infectious diseases and at the same time facilitate the criminal justice process by eliminating, for example, the need to spend time travelling to the location of the proceedings or wasting other resources. For this reason, even after the COVID-19 pandemic, remote criminal proceedings remained popular. However, the remote criminal process is not a neutral substitute for the in-person criminal proceedings. It has an impact on the traditional paradigm of criminal proceedings that is not always positive. This article discusses the regulation of remote criminal proceedings in Lithuania by presenting the findings of an empirical study of Lithuanian lawyers’ perspectives on the remote criminal process which surveyed more than 100 Lithuanian lawyers (judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and pre-trial investigation officers). The article discusses the main advantages and disadvantages of remote criminal proceedings noted by the professionals and identifies legal problems caused by such mode of proceedings. The paper seeks to demonstrate that the development of remote criminal proceedings should be carried out with caution, taking into account its impact on the quality of criminal proceedings and the rights of the participants.

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.