For the 1056 questions where individuals reported knowing their legal status or rights “fully” or “especially” at the beginning of the problem or later in the course of the problem, individuals were asked to briefly explain their legal status or rights. Analysis of the responses revealed some common themes that were classified as described above. Without reproductive autonomy, a law student might miss out on becoming a lawyer, a certain type of lawyer, or a lawyer who is also a parent – as hundreds of lawyers have confirmed in “friends of the court” briefs in the last two Supreme Court abortion cases. (I signed one of those briefings at the time, as did several colleagues and board members of the Brennan Center.) The dream that brought them to law school in the first place, to use the law to help their clients, could be compromised, and it could be the legal system itself that makes it possible. However, despite the apparent and continuing need for PLE, while promoting self-help for the various problems that will soon no longer fall within the scope of legal aid, the government has imposed no obligation on itself to promote knowledge of rights, develop just-in-time legal information and share the burden of the third sector by allowing citizens to: to better deal with their problems alone or in this regard. to inquire about the need for public judicial training measures (see also the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, § 1 (3) 15). While the expectation that the public will take greater responsibility for their legal problems should be complemented by the tools that enable them to do so, it remains to be seen who will take responsibility for both the underlying research and development of PLE. Forfeiture of a parent`s rights means that the person`s rights as a parent are taken away. The person is no longer the child`s legal parent. This means that although the results of other related studies (e.g. Meager et al., 2002, Kim 1999) confirmed, as noted by Pleasence and Balmer (2012), that the BSAS questions were based on the assumption that people had a good knowledge of the spousal rights to which the rights of life partners were compared, resulting in confusion between knowledge of spousal rights and knowledge of cohabitation rights.
Thus, in their 2012 study on the same topic, Pleasence and Balmer (2012) also developed a set of factual questions related to a hypothetical scenario using respondents from the English and Welsh Civil and Social Justice Panel Survey (CSJPS), but randomly varied the duration of the relationship (one month to 20 years – allowing formal modelling of temporal dependence in beliefs about the acquisition of rights) and status (living together or married). Using a different methodology, such as Barlow et al. (2005), Pleasence and Balmer (2012) found evidence of a persistent lack of public understanding of cohabitation law, leading the authors to believe that in the absence of a real understanding of the law, the public tended to believe that the law was compatible with the rights they believed it was intended to protect. 2.Civil justice problems may also be described as “justiciable”, “legal” or “rights” or “problems with a legal dimension”. These are everyday problems that may or may not be solved by the civil justice system. Examples of these problems are given in Table 1. With respect to self-perceived knowledge about rights and based on issues raised in the existing literature (including the findings of Williams and Hall 1972, Caseborne et al. 2006, Genn et al., 2006, Tennant et al. 2006, Buck et al., 2008 and Denvir et al., 2012), we hypothesize that the majority of people facing one or more civil or social justice issues do not say they are aware of their rights, and the majority report that they have not been aware of their rights, but as Kim (1999) and Meager et al.
noted, (2002) These rates vary depending on the type of problem. Based on Deming`s (1950) concerns about memory retrieval issues versus self-assessed questions, we also hypothesize that those who self-report knowing their rights in Wave 1 of the CSJPS with respect to a particular problem often respond inconsistently when asked if they knew their rights in Wave 2 (in relation to the same problem). We further hypothesize that many people who claim to be aware of rights are unable to articulate these rights in response to the open format, but unlike Geer (1988), we suggest that the inability to articulate knowledge about rights is not related to level of education. Studies that have attempted to verify self-reported knowledge, such as the employment rights research of Meager et al. (2000), have adopted a second approach. Use of self-assessment questions alongside a number of other types of questions, including knowledge (initiated and unsolicited) of various employment-related laws and questions asking whether a hypothetical situation constitutes a violation of the law and asking participants to name the law violated. With these methods, Meager et al. (2002) show that although two-thirds of respondents to their study reported being well or very well informed about their rights, background knowledge varied depending on the type of individual problem, with individuals often being able to identify a violation of the law in a hypothetical situation, but were not able to prove this violation by naming the relevant laws.4 The authors concluded that: that individuals frequently identified violations of the law, based on the perception of fairness or natural justice rather than knowledge of relevant laws (Meager et al., 2002), suggesting that self-disclosure remained a crude substitute for actual knowledge. Existing studies have generally adopted one of two approaches to measuring public knowledge of rights.
The first approach, as described by Denvir et al. (2012) and Buck et al. (2008) asked respondents to self-report the extent to which they were aware of their rights, with results indicating low levels of knowledge among the general population and some groups. However, as the methodological literature acknowledges (see, for example, Baldwin, 2009), self-disclosure is a practical approach, but not without problems. These include the fact that long reference periods in any type of survey can affect memory (Deming 1950, Bradburn et al., 1987), that respondents to personal surveys may be inclined to respond in certain ways (for various reasons, see, for example, Groves et al., 2009, Calahan 1968), and that the acquisition of knowledge after the event can lead to: that people incorporate the information into their memory of the post-event experience (Groves et al., 2009).