LEGAL DESIGN THINKING AND CRIMINAL LAW: CRITICAL CONSIDERATIONS
LEGAL DESIGN THINKING Y DERECHO PENAL: ALGUNAS CONSIDERACIONES
LEGAL DESIGN THINKING E DIREITO PENAL: ALGUMAS CONSIDERAÇÕES
Eduardo Morales Barra*
Cálamo 23
Julio 2025
Recibido: 27/I/2025 Aceptado: 1/IV/2025
Abstract
Legal Design Thinking is a user-centered methodology designed to address complex legal problems from an inno- vative perspective. This article focuses on its transformative capacity, demonstrating its relevance across legal domains and how it can generate consistent and e#ective results in diverse contexts. Through the analysis of the crime of rape in the criminal justice system, it exempli!es how this me- thodology allows the development of human-centered, accessible, and broadly applicable solutions. This approach rea$rms that Legal Design Thinking is a methodological tool with the potential to innovate in the design of more inclusive and e$cient legal systems.
Resumen
El Legal Design Thinking es una metodología centrada en el usuario, que combina principios del diseño y el dere- cho para resolver problemas legales de manera accesible y empática. Este artículo analiza en su capacidad transforma- dora, mostrando cómo su aplicación no se limita a un ám- bito especí!co del derecho, sino que puede generar resulta- dos consistentes y efectivos en contextos diversos. A través de un análisis teórico del delito de violación en el sistema
penal, se ejempli!ca cómo esta metodología permite de- sarrollar soluciones humanizadas, accesibles y universales. Este enfoque rea!rma que el Legal Design Thinking es una herramienta metodológica con el potencial de innovar en el diseño de sistemas jurídicos más inclusivos y e!cientes.
Resumo
Legal Design Thinking é uma metodologia centrada no usuário que combina princípios de design e direito para resolver problemas jurídicos de forma acessível e empática. Esteartigoanalisasuacapacidadetransformadora, mostrando como sua aplicação não se limita a uma área especí!ca do direito, mas pode gerar resultados consistentes e e!cazes em contextos diversos. Por meio de uma análise teórica do crime de estupro no sistema de justiça criminal, ilustramos como essa metodologia permite o desenvolvimento de soluções humanizadas, acessíveis e universais. Essa abordagem rea!rma que o Legal Design Thinking é uma ferramenta metodológica com potencial para inovar na concepção de sistemas jurídicos mais inclusivos e e!cientes.
* Graduate in Law from the Autonomous University of Chile. Currently serving as a junior researcher within the CONVERGENCIA Research Group at the same university. Additionally, he is a member of the Scienti!c Society of Law Students at the Autonomous University of Chile (ACED), where he holds the position of community liaison. Email: eduardo.morales.barra1997@gmail.com. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5338-5980
Legal Design Thinking is an innovative methodology that combines design principles and legal analysis to solve complex problems from a user-centered perspective. As Vega Sainz points out:
It is a technique used by designers to solve complex problems through understanding and empathy with the user. It is a lens through which problems can be observed from the user’s perspective, to detect their concerns and needs and try to solve them. (Vega Sainz 2020, 307)
This article explores how this methodology can transform legal analysis, using the case of rape in the criminal justice system as a practical example to show its applications and bene!ts. In this context, Legal Design Thinking allows us to rethink the judicial process from a victim-centered perspective, improving both the care they receive and their access to justice. Although the focus is on the criminal !eld, the principles of Legal Design Thinking are universal and can be applied to various areas of law, such as civil law or administrative law, adapting to the speci!c needs of each area.
In the case of rape, Legal Design Thinking addresses the challenges faced by victims, such as revictimization and barriers to access to justice. By focusing the analysis on the needs of victims, this methodology seeks to design solutions that not only reduce their su#ering but also optimize the judicial system to make it more humane and accessible.
In this context, it is essential to re%ect on how the State could implement reforms that address both prevention, e#ective response, and the consequences of rape crimes. While prevention is key, it is also essential to ensure adequate care for victims during and a&er the judicial process. An approach that focuses only on prevention, without prioritizing immediate care for victims, could create an imbalance and increase su#ering.
A balanced model that combines prevention, e#ective judicial response and subsequent victim support would not only reduce the incidence of these crimes, but also optimize the use of state resources, improving the victim experience and reducing long-term costs.
The need for a reform in the response of the criminal justice system to the crime of rape is supported not only by the serious a#ectation su#ered by the victims, but also by the ine#ectiveness of the traditional models in the protection of their rights and wellbeing. Despite legislative and judicial e#orts, de!ciencies persist in the adequate attention to victims within the judicial process, as well as in the minimization of the revictimization they su#er.
An innovative approach is needed to adapt the penal system to current realities, moving toward a more inclusive and empathetic form of justice. However, “Law, and in general, legal culture tends to reject the
‘non-legal’, which makes it di$cult for other professions such as design to participate in law projects” (Reyes 2024, 9).
In this sense, there is a need to explore methodologies such as Legal Design Thinking, which, as will be ex- plained below, is characterized by placing the expe- riences and needs of the a#ected persons at the center, thus promoting a more humane and e#ective approach to this type of crime. This approach not only aims to improve the protection of victims, but also to optimize access to justice, promoting a comprehensive solution to the problems faced by rape victims.
Legal Design Thinking represents a revolutionary proposal within the !eld of Criminal Law, with the potential to transform the judicial process in relation to sexual crimes. Empathy and creativity are at the core of this approach, fundamental elements to be able to develop legal solutions that not only focus on the sanction or punishment of the perpetrators but also seek comprehensive care for the victims.
By incorporating this method into the judicial system, the social costs of crime could be reduced, and a more equitable justice system could be promoted. The implementation of this methodology would improve the experience of victims, reducing re-victimization and creating a more accessible, humane and user- centered justice system. This would adapt the system to the emotional, psychological and legal needs of the victims, prioritizing their well-being throughout the process.
The objectives of this research focus on three fundamental aspects: First, it seeks to analyze the main challenges faced by rape victims within the current criminal procedure system. Second, it seeks to evaluate the feasibility of implementing Legal Design Thinking as a methodology to improve the care and protection
of victims in the judicial sphere. Finally, it is proposed to develop legal reforms that integrate this innovative approach to reduce revictimization and promote more equitable access to justice.
Likewise, the article explores Legal Design Thinking as a methodological support, to use it as an essential analytical and critical tool to address this legal problem, promoting e$ciency in judicial processes1. According to Morales Barra, Méndez Reátegui and Bermúdez Bermúdez, “its approach focuses on people’s needs, proposing legal solutions adapted to them. In simple terms, it involves thinking legally, but with a touch of attention to the user and innovation” (2024, 14). For instance:
Legal Design Thinking adopts tools and techniques to analyze and recon!gure legal processes in a simple, functional, and engaging way. Its main objective is to propose innovative solutions that not only respond to practical functionalities but also incorporate an emotional component and user experience. (Poto and Parola 2024, 12-13)
This process breaks down into !ve key elements: empathize, de!ne, ideate, prototyping, and testing.
Introduction to the Concept
The !rst stage of Legal Design Thinking consists of understanding the experiences and emotions of the people a#ected by the judicial system. Empathy allows us to identify the user’s experience before de!ning the problem:
Understand the scenario from their perspective. It is necessary to start broadly, without trying to de!ne the problem completely, since this will be done in the following stages. At this point, the
!rst step is to know who the user is and what the system in which he/she interacts is like, before specifying the problem to be addressed. It should
According to Calsamiglia (1988, 355) “E$ciency understood as the criterion that maximizes social wealth”. Likewise, Legal Design Thinking not only improves the communication and accessibility of the law, but also contributes to administrative and social e$ciency, allowing for better allocation of resources and optimizing judicial management. This is key in economic terms, since e$ciency implies the optimal use of available resources to generate the greatest possible bene!t for society.
not be lost sight of the fact that the user is the main objective of the solution to be designed; it is the user’s problem that will be addressed. (Uribe Giraldo and Cardona Toro 2022, 60-61)
In this framework, the design process begins with discovery, which involves empathizing with the user to identify problems or needs and transform them into opportunities. Méndez Reátegui and Álvarez Meythaler highlight that this approach involves understanding the user’s way of thinking and feeling. Then, it re%ects on key questions such as: Who is the user? What do they do? What do they like? What aspirations do they have? (2020, 366-367).
In the context of rape, this means listening to rape victims in Chile to identify speci!c barriers and challenges. Here empathy plays a crucial role as it is not only a tool to identify structural problems, but also a mechanism to humanize the judicial process, reducing the perception of helplessness in the victims. A thorough understanding of victims’ experiences allows for the design of legal processes that are more e#ective, respectful and tailored to their emotional and psychological needs.
Applied Methodology
To understand the barriers faced by rape victims in the judicial system, reports, surveys, and analyses conducted by various institutions were consulted. In this sense, uncovering is essential at the empathizing stage. These documents o#er valuable insights into victims’ experiences and the challenges they face, highlighting structural and emotional issues that hinder their access to justice. For example, according to the Gender and Diversity Unit of the Central University of Chile: “It is a signi!cant, painful and di$cult experience to assimilate. Counting involves remembering, reliving experiences, unpleasant sensations and thoughts that the body and mind are o&en not prepared to cope with”2.
This type of information makes it possible to identify emotional factors that in%uence the moment of reporting, making it di$cult for victims to interact with the procedural system. In addition, in the same document they point out that the judicial processes are “[l]ong and unclear, and that there are professionals with little training in gender violence, and therefore adequate care is not guaranteed, since the story is o&en questioned”3.
Another resource used was the Qualitative Study on the Updating of the Critical Route of Violence Against Women, which provides a detailed analysis of the experiences of victims and the limitations of the judicial system in addressing their needs. This study notes that “52% of the o$cials consulted indicated that they had not received any training on gender-based violence against women in the last 12 months,”4 which directly a#ects the quality of care provided and, in many cases, generates revictimization.
The same document shows that when a policewoman from the O’Higgins Region was interviewed about whether there is an adequate infrastructure for the care of victims, she mentioned that “[t]here is not everywhere a physical space designed to provide exclusive care to victims of gender-based violence, and there is little training of personnel to provide care to victims”. The study also highlights the following:
The expectation of protection and reparation for survivors is not met because there is no comprehensive accompaniment by the ICN institutions, except for SernamEG whose work in the Women’s Centers is highly valued by survivors. RCI o$cials report a level of demand that they are not able to address, due to lack of personnel and resources.5
This lack of infrastructure and the high percentage of untrained o$cials evidence a disconnection between
“Romper el silencio. ¿Por qué nos cuesta denunciar la violencia sexual?”. Universidad Central de Chile. Access on May 5, 2025. https://www.ucentral.cl/ gyd/docs/rompe_el_silencio.pdf
Ibidem.
“Estudio Cualitativo. Actualización de Ruta Crítica de Violencia Contra la Mujer 2020”. Access on May 5, 2025. https://spd-archivo.subprevenciondeldelito. gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Estudio-Cualitativo-Actualizacion-de-la-Ruta-Critica-de-VCM-2020.pdf
Ibidem.
the needs of the victims and the institutional response, highlighting the importance of empathy as an axis to humanize and redesign judicial processes.
The absence of comprehensive services that accompany victims during and a&er the process leaves them without psychological, legal and social support, placing them in a state of vulnerability and distrust, which increases their sense of helplessness. In this situation, empathy allows victims not only to seek (or need) justice, but also a system that accompanies them in a comprehensive manner.
Victims must repeat their testimonies, which makes them relive the details of the abuse repeatedly during the di#erent stages of the process, facing invasive interrogations and traumatic tests, where they o&en face questioning or disbelief from o$cials, which signi!cantly a#ects their mental and emotional health. Empathy here is essential to redesign care protocols that minimize revictimization.
The lack of adequate infrastructure together with the lack of training of o$cials hinders e$cient and respectful attention to victims. For example, in many regions there are no exclusive spaces for attending to rape victims, which compromises their privacy and
dignity. Addressing these problems with empathy not only makes it possible to design more humane processes but also strengthens victims’ con!dence in the judicial system.
At the same time, these testimonies provided in-depth knowledge about their emotions and, most importantly, identi!ed their fundamental needs. Also, thanks to this approach, it was possible to establish an empathetic connection with the victims, which contributed greatly to a more complete understanding of their perspective and the issues involved.
Although this analysis focuses on the experiences of rape victims, the empathy element of Legal Design Thinking is applicable in any legal context where the end user of the justice system should be the focus of the design. For example, in labor law, empathy could be applied to conciliation processes that consider the emotions of workers. In administrative law, it can be used to simplify procedures and ensure digni!ed treatment of the elderly or people with disabilities.
Finally, as we can see, the integration of the empathetic approach of Legal Design Thinking not only optimizes user experiences but also allows us to design more e#ective solutions tailored to their real needs.
The second stage of Legal Design Thinking, called de!ning, is crucial to de!ne the problems identi!ed in the previous phase and transform the !ndings into concrete and actionable points. As Aquae Foundation points out, this stage seeks to: “Synthesize the !ndings of the empathy phase to clearly identify the speci!c problems and challenges that need to be addressed. This will allow us to be able to de!ne a clear problem”6.
This stage consists of organizing and prioritizing the information gathered about the users, the parties involved and the system in which they interact. In this sense, to go deeper into how this process is carried out and what tools could be used to achieve it, researchers Uribe Giraldo and Cardona Toro point out the following:
The objective is to land all the information gathered in a summary that will demarcate the
Aquae Foundation. “The Design Thinking Methodology: De!nition and Phases”. Last updated on January 16, 2021. https://www.fundacionaquae.org/ wiki/que-es-el-design-thinking/
challenge to which the rest of the design process will be devoted. This phase has to do with the creation of deliverables; while the !rst stage tries to collect large amounts of information, this stage means reducing it to documents–maps–with clear, prioritized and speci!c points. (Uribe Giraldo and Cardona Toro 2022, 61)
Through this synthesis, the design team re%ects on the root causes or e#ects of the identi!ed challenge, considering how to e#ectively address it. This step lays the groundwork for hypothesizing potential solutions, connecting empathetic understanding with early design ideas.
In the !rst stage, various barriers faced by users in the judicial system were identi!ed. However, to move forward in the design process, it is crucial, as mentioned above, to transform these !ndings into clear and speci!c challenges that can be e#ectively addressed. The de!ne stage, as part of Legal Design Thinking, has the purpose of synthesizing and prioritizing this information, delimiting the scope of the problem and establishing the basis for the generation of solutions in later stages.
In this sense, we reformulated the problems identi!ed in Chapter 1 as concrete challenges, listing them in order of priority and subsequently transforming them into key questions that will guide the design of solutions in Chapter 3. In this sense, it would be as follows:
Revictimization: Revictimization was highlighted as the most critical challenge, due to its immediate emotional impact and its deterrent e#ect on victims when seeking justice.
Structural barriers: these were considered cross- cutting factors that, if addressed, would improve the e$ciency and equity of the judicial system.
Lack of comprehensive accompaniment: The lack of comprehensive accompaniment was prioritized due to its relevance in guaranteeing continuous support and reducing the feeling of helplessness of the victims.
Based on the identi!ed and prioritized problems, three challenges were identi!ed. About revictimization, the question arose as to how to reduce the need for victims to repeat their testimony at each stage of the judicial process without compromising the quality of the evidence? In addition, regarding structural barriers, we ask ourselves how we can improve the training of o$cials and ensure adequate infrastructure to provide e$cient and respectful attention to victims? In addition, how can we ensure that the training of o$cials is e#ective and consistent over time? Finally, about the lack of comprehensive support, we wonder what model of integrated services could guarantee psychological, legal and social support throughout the judicial process?
These prioritized challenges provide a clear focus for the ideation stage, which will seek creative and e#ective solutions that respond to the most urgent needs of victims. By addressing the challenges at their root causes, it is hoped to design more humane, inclusive, and e$cient legal processes.
The strength of Legal Design Thinking lies in its ability to transcend the boundaries of speci!c areas of law, such as criminal law, by o#ering versatile tools applicable to a variety of legal contexts. The prioritization of problems and questioning of challenges in this chapter, derived from the analysis of rape victims’ experiences, illustrates how this methodology can be adapted to other branches of law.
A representative example is the challenge of avoiding re- victimization, a problem that can be transferred to the
!eld of labor law, where it is essential to protect workers who report harassment from repeated questioning or reprisals that hinder their access to justice. Similarly, structural barriers, such as insu$cient training and lack of resources, constitute a cross-cutting problem that a#ects, for example, administrative law, where excessive
bureaucracy and lack of specialized personnel hinder the e$cient resolution of con%icts.
On the other hand, the lack of comprehensive support, prioritized in this analysis, has a clear parallel in family law. In this context, the parties involved o&en face exhausting processes, lacking adequate psychological or social support. In such cases, Legal Design Thinking can contribute to the design of comprehensive care models that address not only legal issues, but also the emotional needs of those a#ected.
Similarly, Legal Design Thinking is not limited exclusively to addressing legal issues. It is also used in organizational environments for the de!nition or rede!nition of strategies, the creation of new products and services, the resolution of internal con%icts, the development
of technological tools and the improvement of the contracting experience. As Galarza García points out:
It is used for various purposes, to analyze the future of public or private sector organizations, de!ning or rede!ning their strategic lines, for the analysis and de!nition of new products and services, to solve organizational problems, the creation of technological tools and the improvement of the contracting experience. (Galarza Garcia 2022, 104)
In conclusion, the questions posed in this chapter transcend the resolution of speci!c problems in the criminal justice system, providing a frame of reference for recon!guring and optimizing processes in various areas of law, thus, guaranteeing the most e#ective solutions focused on the speci!c needs of the user.
In this third stage, the ideation stage, a process focused on the generation of creative and innovative solutions to address the problems previously identi!ed is carried out. Unlike the previous phases, which sought, from their own perspective, to understand and de!ne the users’ problems, this stage focuses on collective imagi- nation and the development of proposals that trans- form the !ndings into possible solutions. As Rojas Quintero points out, “To encourage creative thinking, it is important to eliminate value judgments, since ideas cannot be labeled as ‘good or bad’; they all contribute” (Rojas Quintero 2021, 26). Within this phase, an important tool is brainstorming, since, as Serrano Ortega and Blázquez Ceballos point out:
It is a way to generate a lot of ideas that we would not be able to do individually. The intention of brainstorming is to take advantage of the collective thinking of the group, listen, and based on other ideas build new ones. (Serrano Ortega and Blázquez Ceballos 2015, 76-77)
This method encourages collaboration between disciplines, promoting an integrative and creative approach.
In the !eld of criminal law, devising involves designing solutions that consider not only legal and procedural aspects, but also the emotional, psychological and social needs of the victims. This interdisciplinary approach allows the creation of tools and strategies adapted to the context, promoting a more humane and e#ective justice.
Based on the challenges prioritized in the “De!ne” phase, the following proposals were developed, aimed at reducing re-victimization, eliminating structural barriers and guaranteeing comprehensive support for victims.
Use of technology to reduce victim exposure: implement video conferencing systems that allow victims to give their testimony from secure
environments, avoiding direct confrontations with the aggressors and reducing the need to repeat state- ments. Additionally, design secure digital platforms where victims can provide evidence, access updates on the judicial process and communicate with professionals in a con!dential manner.
Comprehensive support center: create multidis- ciplinary spaces that combine psychological care, legal advice and social support. These centers, loca- ted especially in rural or hard-to-reach areas, would ensure more equitable and dignified treatment for victims. In addition, train o$cials in gender perspective and victim-centered care, ensuring that interactions are empathetic and respectful.
Protocols for minimizing revictimization: establish mechanisms for recording the !rst testimony under optimal conditions to be used in the di#erent stages of the judicial process, reducing the need for victims to repeat their traumatic experience. This follows the line of Law 21.057, which regulates recorded interviews with minors, establishing single recorded statements to reduce the need for victims to repeat their testimony at each stage of the judicial process. Likewise, tools such as the Gesell Chamber can be incorporated, which allows the victim to testify in a safe environment, avoiding direct confrontation with the aggressor. As Bonilla-Morejón et al. (Bonilla-Morejón et al. 2023, 192) argue, although in some cases confrontation between victim and perpetrator is legally unavoidable, it is essential to adopt measures that minimize its negative impact, ensuring a less traumatic process for the victim. Also, design clear guidelines for non-invasive questioning and prioritize the emotional well-being of victims throughout the process.
Ongoing and effective training for employees: establish a mandatory system of regular training, at least every six months, for officials working with victims. These trainings should be updated periodically to incorporate the latest advances in gender perspective, victim-centered care and humanized protocols.
Implement control mechanisms to ensure e#ective compliance with training. For example, in case of
non-compliance with the updating deadline, a !ne could be imposed on the institutions responsible or on the superiors of the o$cials, thus promoting institutional responsibility and continuous improvement.
These proposals illustrate how an interdisciplinary approach can generate e$cient, practical, and people- centered solutions, improving the victims’ experience in the justice system.7
The generation of these ideas was based on the use of creative tools typical of Legal Design Thinking, combined with disruptive questions that allow us to explore innovative solutions from di#erent pers- pectives. Inspired by creative questions proposed by various authors, such as those mentioned by Serrano Ortega and Blazquez Ceballos “What are the most obvious solutions to this problem? What can be added, removed or modi!ed from these initial solutions?” (Serrano Ortega and Blazquez Ceballos 2015, 77).
In the same vein, we broadened the focus with additional questions designed to delve deeper into user needs and explore out-of-the-box solutions, such as:
How could this problem be solved with today’s technological tools?
If victims were to design their own judicial process, what would it look like?
What solutions could be implemented quickly with minimal resources?
Through these tools, not only creative solutions were generated, but the possibilities of Legal Design Thinking to transform access to justice in criminal and other areas of law were demonstrated.
Although the solutions proposed in this chapter are oriented to criminal law, the tools of Legal Design
The impact of Legal Design Thinking is not only re%ected in a more digni!ed experience for victims, but also in the optimization of the judicial system’s time and resources by reducing unnecessary processes and improving the e#ectiveness of evidence and testimony collection. From an economic perspective, this translates into reduced administrative costs and greater e$ciency in case management.
Thinking can be applied in other areas of law. Its focus on empathy and innovation allows it to be adapted to diverse contexts; in the !eld of administrative law, for example, it can simplify procedures through user- friendly digital platforms. In this context, as Antón Antón points out:
We speak of a methodology that focuses on the needs of the users of a product, a service or a process, in this case taxpayers, and that can be used both to design digitization processes of the administrations and procedures aimed at compliance with tax obligations. (2021, 768)
In the labor !eld, this means the development of more humane and e$cient conciliation processes
and in the commercial context the implementation of visual contracts and clear language to improve the understanding of the parties. For example:
Bringing people and law closer together through a human-centered design approach makes contracts more accessible, readable and understandable to their users and improves the delivery of legal services by lawyers. (Nousiainen 2022, cited in Soler Puentes 2024, 9)
In this way, the strategies developed in this phase allow us to visualize how the Legal Design Thinking methodology can be applied in various legal contexts, o#ering e#ective solutions adapted to the speci!c needs of each area of law.
Previously, we talked about a comprehensive support center for victims, a prototype, which theore- tically speaking, will be described in detail. The Comprehensive Support Center for Rape Victims has been proposed, an initiative that seeks to provide multidisciplinary assistance to those who have been victims of sexual crimes, ensuring equal and free access to legal, psychological and medical resources. To achieve its correct operation, various key areas related to its !nancing, infrastructure, professional team and implementation strategies have been considered.
Regarding the !nancing and sustainability of the center, being free, it must come mainly from the State, since the target audience is people who lack the economic resources to access private services. To avoid overload and long waiting lists, a !lter based on the Social Household Registration Form (RSH) will be implemented. Access will be allowed to those who have a maximum percentage of 60% in the RSH card, while those people with a percentage between 60% and 80% will be able to access only if a social worker assesses that they cannot e#ectively a#ord private services.
In addition, to ensure long-term !nancial sustainability, the center can be complemented with strategic alliances with universities, international organizations and NGOs that work in the protection of human rights. Likewise, cooperation programs could be generated with the private sector in areas such as the training of professionals or the donation of technological equipment.
The center should include the following professionals:
Lawyers: Who are trained to guide victims at each stage of the judicial process.
Psychologists: Professionals specialized in trauma who o#er emotional support and ongoing therapies.
Psychiatrists: To address more complex mental health problems.
Gynecologists and forensic doctors: To perform medical examinations, collect evidence and provide specialized care.
Social workers: To assess the socioeconomic situation of victims and provide support in the judicial process.
Specialized Carabineros unit: To receive complaints within the same center, thus avoiding victims having
to go to a police station, which can be intimidating or traumatic. These o$cials would be constantly trained in the same center, ensuring that they have specialized training in dealing with victims of sexual crimes.
It should be noted that the training of professionals must include a selection process that ensures that they are psychologically prepared to deal with these cases. It is recommended that lawyers and social workers be allowed to have interns, but not health professionals, due to the need for a stable and trusting bond with victims. Continuous training of o$cials is also key, with periodic talks and courses to ensure adequate and up- to-date treatment in their areas of specialization.
Regarding infrastructure and privacy, the design of the center should focus on generating a warm and welco- ming environment, far from the coldness of a hospital. To this end, a large space with access to natural light, internal gardens and rooms di#erentiated according to the needs of the victims is suggested.
The aspects that were prioritized in the design of the prototype were:
Positive impact: The need to periodically evaluate how the prototype a#ects the experience of vic- tims, and the functioning of the judicial system is emphasized. This allows for identifying impro- vements and ensuring that the solutions implemented reduce trauma and promote more e#ective justice. A system of satisfaction surveys and metrics on case resolution would be included.
Accessibility: To ensure equitable coverage, the strategic location of support centers in both urban and rural areas is prioritized, eliminating geographical barriers that hinder access to essential services. Online psychological care would also be considered to increase coverage.
Economic viability: The design of the prototype focuses on sustainability through public resources, seeking to implement a model that can be main- tained over time without compromising the quality or continuity of the services offered. For this reason, financing would come mainly from the State, considering that many victims cannot a#ord
private services. As mentioned above; to meet the high demand, a !lter would be applied through the Social Household Registration Form (RSH) to guarantee priority access to those who need it. In addition, alliances would be sought with universities, NGOs and the private sector to improve the long- term sustainability of the center.
Finally, to ensure e#ective implementation, it is suggested to start with a pilot plan in a rural area, where demand would be more controllable, and adjustments could be made before a national expansion. In urban contexts, the hiring of more sta# and the use of technology would be evaluated to avoid saturation of the system.
The principles identi!ed in the prototyping phase can be transferred to other branches of law, adapting key elements to improve the care and protection of the di#erent vulnerable groups. Beyond showing its versatility, the approach o#ers lessons that can be replicated in other contexts.
In family law, the centralization of services and specialized training of o$cials could be implemented to address situations involving minors, such as custody and protection processes. The implementation of spaces adapted and designed for taking statements from children, with personnel trained in child psychology, would reduce the stress associated with these procedures and guarantee the protection of their emotional integrity.
In the workplace, the creation of support instances aimed at victims of harassment or workplace discri- mination would replicate the legal and psychological counseling model developed for victims of sexual violence, guaranteeing more specialized and digni!ed treatment.
Similarly, in civil and administrative law, the approach of periodic training of judicial and administrative o$cials can be integrated into more humanized care protocols. In addition, they could raise the standard of care by developing mechanisms to simplify bureaucratic
processes through guided advice, preventing citizens from facing unnecessary obstacles in their access to justice.
In this context:
Prototyping of products or services usually also covers the public sphere, i.e., judicial services. A public policy prototype for service innovation involves visual creation, to conduct experiments
to test behaviors, risks and other possible outcomes that may be unexpected. (Lopez Ruiz and Restrepo Hoyos 2021, 28-29)
In short, the prototyping phase not only validates solutions in the criminal !eld but also provides a framework that can be replicated in various areas of law, allowing for the continuous improvement of justice systems and their adaptation to the speci!c needs of each sector.
The last stage of Legal Design Thinking, testing, focuses on evaluating and validating the solutions designed in the previous stages. This process is crucial to identify areas for improvement, guarantee the e#ectiveness of the proposals and adapt them to the real needs of the users. In this sense, the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford explains:
This step consists of soliciting feedback and opinions about the prototypes that have been created from users and colleagues and is another opportunity to gain empathy for the people you are otherwise designing for. A good rule of thumb is to always make a prototype believing we are right, but we should evaluate thinking we are wrong. This is the opportunity to re!ne solutions and improve them. Ideally you should evaluate and test in the user context itself.8
In the context of rape, the solutions designed, such as comprehensive support centers or protocols to minimize revictimization, are evaluated to ensure their e#ectiveness and adapt them to the real needs of victims. This process should be carried out in environments that simulate the real dynamics of the judicial system, to identify practical improvements that ensure that the proposals are feasible, accessible and victim centered.
In addition, this phase reinforces empathy for the victims by gathering their opinions on the solutions, detecting previously unidenti!ed barriers and adjusting the proposals to maximize their positive impact. This ensures that the solutions are not only functional, but also supportive of victim empowerment and procedural clarity.
To test the proposed solutions, it is essential to use a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to obtain a true picture of their impact. Surveys could be designed for victims interacting with the prototypes, allowing feedback to be gathered on aspects such as accessibility, e#ectiveness, and treatment received. These would include both closed and open-ended questions to capture more detailed perceptions.
In addition, the data obtained during the trial period can be statistically analyzed to identify patterns, measure the degree of user satisfaction and evaluate the impact of the solutions on key indicators, such as the reduction of re-victimization or the e$ciency of case resolution time.
In parallel, participatory observation would be applied, in which experts in law, psychology and design would directly observe the implementation of the solutions,
Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford. 2018. Guide to the creative process. Mini guide: an introduction to Design Thinking+ Bootcamp bootleg. Access on May 5, 2025. https://shorturl.at/sZ8Yf
recording interactions and detecting problems not evident in the previous stages. In-depth interviews will also be conducted, focusing on both victims and justice system o$cials, to explore their experiences and perceptions.
Finally, pilot tests were conducted in controlled environments to evaluate the functionality, feasibi- lity, and acceptance of the designed prototypes, allowing adjustments to be made prior to full-scale implementation.
This last stage is an inherent feature of this methodo- logy and, like the previous stages, can be implemented in various legal areas beyond criminal law. Its iterative and experimental nature allows for cross-cutting application, being especially useful in contexts where end-user participation is essential to ensure the e#ectiveness of the measures implemented.
For example, in labor law, testing makes it possible to evaluate tools for resolving con%icts between employers and workers, such as conciliation simulations that improve communication and reduce inequalities. In administrative law, it validates systems that simplify procedures and improve citizen access, considering the needs of the elderly or the disabled. In family law, it ensures that solutions such as mediation models or support in divorce cases are e#ective and mitigate the emotional impact, especially on minors.
In all these assumptions, the purpose lies not only in ensuring the functionality of the solutions, but also in fostering an approach oriented towards humanity, accessibility and user-centricity. Moreover, the proto- typing phase not only validates solutions in the crimi- nal !eld but also provides a replicable framework in various areas of law, allowing for the continuous improvement of justice systems and their adaptation to the speci!c needs of each sector.
Although Legal Design Thinking can improve the experience of victims within the criminal system, its implementation faces structural, regulatory, and cultural challenges. The !rst obstacle is procedural rigidity and regulatory barriers because the criminal system is based on principles of legality and due process, which implies that any innovation must conform to a strict regulatory framework. This can slow down the adoption of new methodologies to improve the accessibility of judicial procedures. Along these lines, Flechas, García, and Escobar point out that “public projects tend to take longer to implement and are more di$cult to coordinate between teams” (2021, 18), which reinforces the idea that introducing changes in the criminal !eld can be an even greater challenge.
Furthermore, bureaucracy in the criminal public sector discourages innovation, as o$cials may face sanctions if they exceed their functions. As Barbosa points out:
To analyze the interference of design thinking in the generation of public policies as a legal norm, we must accept the premise that law cannot solve everything alone [...] in public law, Administration officials are highly limited by their functions and are repressed for overstepping them, which translates into a disincentive for innovation. (2023, 256)
In the case of the Comprehensive Support Center for Rape Victims, the integration of a specialized Carabi- neros unit within the center to receive complaints in a safe environment could require legislative modi!- cations, since currently, the complaint must be made in prosecutors’ o$ces or police stations under pre- established protocols, which creates a barrier to improving the experience of victims.
The second problem is resistance to change, since, as Flechas, García, and Escobar point out, “the mental
barriers to learning from a lawyer are the same in the public and private sectors [...], convincing lawyers about the need to train in these methodologies was equally challenging in the public and private sectors” (2021, 19). This is because judges, prosecutors, defenders, and police have been trained under traditional legal models, where formality and procedure are essential to guarantee legal certainty, which makes it di$cult to adopt innovative approaches such as Legal Design Thinking.
This resistance also stems from the fact that Legal Design Thinking proposes an open and iterative approach, which “can be seen in an ambiguous way and very far from the Cartesian methods commonly used in engineering and science” (Barbosa 2023, 262). Additionally, in the criminal !eld, there is a perception that the simpli!cation of legal language could make legal documents less precise. However, in the case of victims of sexual crimes, a redesign of procedural documents could make them better understand their rights and the status of their process.
A third problem could be the lack of training in this type of modern methodology such as Legal Design Thinking, which “requires speci!c skills that are not always present in public sector environments” (Mintrom and Luetjens 2016, 394). It represents a barrier to its implementation in the criminal system, where the training of legal professionals is key to its adoption.
In the case of the Comprehensive Support Center, lawyers, psychologists, doctors, and police o$cers should receive training in legal design and victim- centered communication. However, in the criminal !eld, training o&en focuses on normative and evidentiary aspects, leaving aside innovative approaches.
In addition, training time can be a problem in public institutions, where the workload is already high. Barbosa warns that “Design for public policies can increase the time to develop them as it promotes the co-creation of policies and consensus on citizen objectives” (Barbosa 2023, 255). Although this process may be slower, its long-term impact on the experience of victims would justify the investment in training.
A fourth problem is institutional fragmentation and the lack of interdisciplinary teams, since for Legal Design Thinking to work e#ectively in the criminal system, collaborative work between various institutions is necessary, something that is o&en di$cult due to bureaucratic rigidity. As Flechas, García, and Escobar point out, “in public entities, o$cials are usually assigned to speci!c roles, so, asking for collaboration to participate outside this framework of action is a bit di$cult because it would be acting extra-contractually” (2021, 17).
Likewise, overcoming rigid hierarchical structures and divisions between agencies is essential for the design of innovative policies. Along these lines, Mintrom and Luetjens highlight that Legal Design Thinking promotes overcoming “organizational and procedural compartments, established hierarchies or bureaucratic categories” (2016, 395).
In the case of the Comprehensive Support Center for Rape Victims, its success would depend on cooperation between Ministries, the Prosecutor’s O$ce, Carabi- neros and the Judiciary. However, if there is no clear institutional commitment, the initiative could become fragmented and lose e#ectiveness, limiting its impact on the protection and assistance of victims.
Fi&h and last, Legal Design Thinking faces the risk of not being taken seriously within the criminal system, since being an emerging methodology in the public sector, there is still a perception that it does not constitute a legitimate tool to transform criminal justice. As Mintrom and Luetjens warn, its application in the public sector remains “varied and dispersed,” which creates the risk that it “is not taken seriously” (2016, 400).
This lack of recognition could make it di$cult to adopt in courts, prosecutors’ o$ces, or public defenders’ o$ces, where innovations are o&en viewed with skepticism if they do not have explicit regulatory backing.
However, despite its di$culties, “[o]nce the bureaucratic process is overcome, the impact of a project from the public sector reaches thousands of citizens” (Flechas,
García, and Escobar 2021, 20). This means that if, for example, the Comprehensive Support Center for Rape Victims is implemented as a pilot project, its success
could lead to its expansion nationwide, setting a new standard in care for victims of sexual crimes.
Based on the analysis carried out, it is concluded that Legal Design Thinking, as a user-centered methodology, constitutes an innovative tool with a growing impact, not only in terms of popularity but also in its expansion into various areas of law and even beyond this !eld. This approach has the potential to transform the way legal problems are addressed and resolved.
In the context of the crime of rape, it was shown that this approach allows transforming the experience of victims in the criminal system, developing more humanized, accessible, and e#ective solutions, contributing to redu- cing re-victimization and improving the interaction of victims with the judicial system.
The viability of the Comprehensive Support Center for Rape Victims illustrates how this methodology can be translated into concrete policies that prioritize empathy, accessibility, and economic viability. Measures such as the integration of technology to facilitate complaints, the redesign of judicial documents in clear language, and the interdisciplinary training of legal operators are tangible examples of their potential to improve the protection and assistance of victims. As Yankovskiy points out: “A key to success in a fast-changing world is the ability to see things from di#erent angles, to quickly absorb everything new and to stay out of frames” (Yankovskiy 2019, 12).
However, its implementation faces regulatory and cultural challenges. The rigidity of the criminal jus- tice system, resistance to change, and institutional frag- mentation can limit its adoption. In this sense, legislators must promote reforms that allow the incorporation of
innovative approaches in victim care, guaranteeing their e#ectiveness within the current legal framework. Likewise, institutions in charge of criminal prosecution must promote training in Legal Design Thinking, integrating it as a key competence in the training of judges, prosecutors, and defenders.
As Nousiainen states: “The legal design approach applies various design methods to the law as well as the novel innovations in technology” (Nousiainen 2021, cited in Nousiainen 2022, 148). This versatility allows its application not to be limited to criminal law, but to be extended to other areas such as administrative, labor, and family law, optimizing the quality and e$ciency of legal services.
In conclusion, Legal Design Thinking o#ers a %exible, replicable methodology that, by focusing on the needs of users, guarantees consistent and applicable results in di#erent areas of law. As demonstrated in the case of the crime of rape, its implementation not only facilitates access to justice for victims of sexual crimes but also contributes to the construction of a more e$cient9, accessible, and people-centered legal system.
Its approach not only responds to the challenges of a constantly changing world but also lays the foundations for a more inclusive, fair, and sustainable legal system. For this approach to have a real impact, legal operators and public policy designers must work collaboratively, overcoming institutional barriers and promoting a true transformation in the way in which law is designed and applied.
In the context described in the article, Legal Design Thinking is a methodology that contributes to the e$ciency of the judicial system, as it allows for the optimization of resource use and the application of evidence- and data-based strategies. Its innovative approach facilitates the construction of a more rational and e#ective system, aligned with the principles of public management and legal economics.
Antón Antón, Álvaro. 2021. “Principios del Human- centered Design en los estudios de Derecho Tributario: técnicas de Legal Design y Legal Visualization para facilitar el cumplimiento de las obligaciones tributarias”. In EDUNOVATIC 2021: Conference Proceedings: 6th Virtual Inter- national Conference on Education, Innovation and ICT, 766-771. Madrid: Red de Investigación e Innovación Educativa (REDINE). Access on May 5, 2025. https://edunovatic.org/wp-content/ uploads/2022/02/EDUNOVATIC21.pdf
Barbosa, Juan. 2023. “Innovación pública y pensa- miento de diseño para políticas públicas en el contexto de desarrollo de ciudad (Public Inno- vation and Design Thinking as Mechanisms of Participatory City Creation)”. Revista Digital de Derecho Administrativo, n.º 29 (enero-junio): 235-271. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4330514
Bonilla, Diego, Je#erson Bonilla-Morejón, Jaime Guano, Patricio Meléndez, Franklin Murillo, Sarita Peña, Delia Samaniego, Diego Solis, Luis Vásquez and Ronny Núñez. 2023. Los gritos silenciosos de las víctimas de violencia de género: Un enfoque des- de la perspectiva pre procesal y procesal penal en el Ecuador. Editorial Grupo AEA. Access on May 5, 2025. https://doi.org/10.55813/egaea.l.2022.41
Calsamiglia Blancafort, Albert. 1988. “Justicia, e!- ciencia y derecho”. Revista del Centro de Estu- dios Constitucionales, Nº. 1: 355. Access on May 5, 2025. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/ articulo?codigo=1048059
Flechas, Angélica, Jorge García y Sofía Escobar. 2021. “Aplicación de la metodología de Legal Service Design de cara a contextos de derecho público vs. derecho privado”. RChD: Creación y Pensamiento 6 (11): 1-23. Access on May 5, 2025. https://doi. org/10.5354/0719-837X.2021.65499
Galarza García, Alejandra Patricia. 2022. “Legal Design: Un método disruptive aplicado al Dere- cho”. Lawgic Tec (LT): Revista de Derecho y Tec- nología,no.02:96-105.AccessonMay5,2025.https:// www.academia.edu/87830965/Legal_Design_ un_m%C3%A9todo_disruptivo_aplicado_al_ Derecho?auto=download
López Ruiz, Camila, and Nickol Andrea Restrepo Hoyos. 2021. “Legal Design: Taking Law towards a Creative Society”, thesis presented as a partial requirement for obtaining the title of Lawyer at EAFIT Universidad, Colombia. Access on May 5, 2025. https://repository.ea!t. edu.co/server/api/core/bitstreams/df524a49- d5b2-4107-b00a-7075552dcb13/content
Méndez Reátegui, Rubén, and Amparo Álvarez Meythaler. “Regulation or deregulation: a re%ec- tion from design thinking”. Desde el Sur 12, no. 2 (2020): 365-376. Access on May 5, 2025. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21142/des-1202-2020-0021
Méndez-Reátegui, Rubén, and Werner Betancourt Pinto. 2021. “Consideraciones generales sobre el AED, el Legal Design Thinking y el lavado de activos en el Ecuador”. Veritas & Research 3 (1): 38-49. Access on May 5, 2025. http://revistas. pucesa.edu.ec/ojs/ index.php?journal= VR&page= article&op=view&path[]=49
Mintrom, Michael, and Joannah Luetjens. 2016. “Design Thinking in Policymaking Processes: Opportunities and Challenges”. Australian Journal of Public Administration 75 (3): 391-402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12211
Morales Barra, Eduardo Bernardo, Rubén Méndez Reátegui and Yonni Albeiro Bermúdez Bermúdez. 2024. El delito de violación: regulación y proporcionalidad. Bogotá: Tirant Humanidades.
Nousiainen, Katri. 2022. “Legal design in commercial contracting and business sustainability New legal quality metrics standards”. Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation, Volume 6, No. 2: 137-158. Access on May 5, 2025. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1177/20555636221138972
Poto, Margherita Paola, y Giulia Parola, eds. 2024. Building Bridges for Effective Environmental Participation: The Path of Law Co-Creation. The Chiquitano Multimodal Format for Disseminating the Escazú Agreement. Human Rights Interventions. Springer. Digital book. https://link.springer.com/ book/10.1007/978-3-031-52791-3
Reyes, Mateo. 2024. “Legal Design Applied at Blackton Law Firm”. Degree project presented at Universidad de los Andes, Colombia. Access on May 5, 2025. https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstreams/ e17a1 e26-fd22 -44 c5 -813a- f3551489 d800/
download
Rojas Quintero, Isabella. 2021. “El nuevo desafío de los abogados: transformar la experiencia de los servicios legales a través de la innovación”. thesis presented as a partial requirement for obtaining the title of Lawyer at EAFIT Universidad, Colombia. Access on May 5, 2025. https://shorturl.at/nZ49G
Serrano Ortega, Manuel and Pilar Blázquez Ceballos. 2015. Design thinking. Lidera el presente. Crea el futuro. Madrid: ESIC Editorial. Access on May 5, 2025. https://www.academia.edu/37936016/ Desing_thinking_lidera_el_presente_crea_el_ futuro_pdf
Soler Puentes, Karen Sofía. 2024. “Contratos mercan- tiles: Optimización y validez a través del legal design thinking”. Undergraduate Program Thesis presented at Universidad El Bosque, Colombia. Access on May 5, 2025. https://hdl.handle. net/20.500.12495/12927
Uribe Giraldo, Alejandra and Daniel Cardona Toro. 2022. “Diseño jurídico para el fortaleci- miento del acceso a la justicia en Colombia”. Undergraduate Program Thesis presented at Universidad de Caldas, Colombia. Access on May 5, 2025. https://repositorio.ucaldas.
edu.co/entities/publication/41329da2-b935- 4ade-aefd-5813c1067059/full
Vega Sainz, José. 2020. “Legal Design Thinking. Visuales en los contratos y su validez legal”. Revista Jurídica Austral, 1 (1): 303-318. DOI: https://doi. org/10.26422/RJA.2020.0101.veg
Yankovskiy, R.M. 2019. “Legal Design: New Challenges and New Opportunities”. Zakon, no. 5: 76-86. Access on May 5, 2025. https://ssrn.com/ abstract=3447215