Courts have long struggled to bridge the access-to-justice gap associated with in-person hearings, which makes the recent adoption of online legal proceedings potentially beneficial. Online proceedings hold promise for better access: they occur remotely, can proceed asynchronously, and often rely solely on written communication. Yet these very qualities may also undermine some of the well-established elements of procedural-justice perceptions, a primary predictor of how people view the legal system's legitimacy. This paper examines the implications of shifting legal proceedings online for both procedural-justice and access-to-justice perceptions. It also investigates the relationship of both types of perceptions with system legitimacy, as well as the relative weight these predictors carry across litigant income levels. Drawing on online traffic court cases, we find that perceptions of procedural justice and access to justice are each separately associated with a litigant's appraisal of system legitimacy, but among lower-income parties, access to justice is a stronger predictor, while procedural justice dominates among higher-income parties. These findings highlight the need to incorporate access-to-justice perceptions into existing models of legal legitimacy.

中文翻译：

---

合法性和在线诉讼：程序正义、诉诸司法和收入的作用

长期以来，法院一直在努力弥合与面对面听证会相关的诉诸司法的鸿沟，这使得最近采用的在线法律程序具有潜在的好处。在线程序有望获得更好的访问：它们发生在远程，可以异步进行，并且通常仅依赖于书面交流。然而，正是这些品质也可能破坏程序正义观念的一些既定要素，这是人们如何看待法律制度合法性的主要预测因素。本文研究了将法律程序转移到网上对程序正义和诉诸司法的看法的影响。它还调查了两种类型的看法与系统合法性的关系，以及这些预测因素在诉讼当事人收入水平上的相对权重。借鉴在线交通法庭案件，我们发现程序正义和诉诸司法的感知分别与诉讼当事人对系统合法性的评估相关，但在低收入当事人中，诉诸司法是一个更强的预测因素，而程序正义在其中占主导地位高收入政党。这些调查结果强调需要将诉诸司法的观念纳入现有的法律合法性模型。