Conflicts and Commonalities in Judicial Evaluation

Authors

  • Richard Mohr Social Research Policy and Planning
  • Francesco Contini Istituto di ricerca sui sistemi giudiziari (IRSIG-CNR)

Keywords:

Judicial evaluation, performance studies, dialogue, values, Evaluación judicial, estudios de rendimiento, diálogo, valores

Abstract

This article explores the proper role of judicial evaluation in relation to the various branches of government and a range of disciplines. Judicial evaluation is a practical, interpretive sphere of inquiry, based on dialogue and collaboration. It must respect important shared values, based on human rights and dignity, responsible approaches to research, and the conservation of resources. After outlining two contrasting approaches, from the European Commission and from Sweden, the article considers the roles of politics and knowledge or science (broadly defined) in judicial evaluation. Then nine values are enunciated, based on the common heritage of courts, government and scientific research. In the practice of judicial evaluation, meaningful data must be collected, reported clearly and interpreted transparently in dialogue with stakeholders. Conclusions should be consistent with the shared values, derived from honest arguments and communicated effectively. Researchers should be impartial, treat participants with equal dignity and respect their rights to privacy. Judicial evaluation must be useful in improving the administration of justice, without wasting time or resources of the courts or researchers.

Este artículo analiza el papel correcto de la evaluación judicial en relación con los distintos poderes del Estado y una amplia gama de disciplinas. La evaluación judicial es un ámbito de investigación práctico e interpretativo, basado en el diálogo y la colaboración. Debe respetar importantes valores compartidos, basados en los derechos humanos y la dignidad, realizar un acercamiento responsable a la investigación y la conservación de recursos. Tras esbozar dos enfoques opuestos, de la Comisión Europea y de Suecia, el artículo considera el rol de la política y el conocimiento o la ciencia (en sentido amplio) en la evaluación judicial. A continuación se enuncian nueve valores, basados en el patrimonio común de los tribunales, el gobierno y la investigación científica. En la práctica de la evaluación judicial, se deben recopilar los datos significativos, informar de ellos claramente e interpretarlos de forma transparente en diálogo con las partes interesadas. Las conclusiones deben ser coherentes con los valores compartidos, derivados de argumentos honestos y comunicados de manera efectiva. Los investigadores deben ser imparciales, tratar a los participantes con la misma dignidad y respetar sus derechos a la privacidad. La evaluación judicial debe ser útil para mejorar la administración de justicia, sin hacer perder tiempo ni recursos a los tribunales o investigadores.

DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2537860

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Views 173
Downloads:
PDF 120


Author Biographies

Richard Mohr, Social Research Policy and Planning

Richard Mohr is director of Social Research, Policy and Planning, is a visiting professorial fellow in the Legal Intersections Research Centre at the University of Wollongong, Australia, and maintains connections with the Institute for Judicial Research in Bologna (IRSIG-CNR), publishing with Francesco Contini. He has published in socio-legal and semiotic journals. His most recent book is Law and Religion in Public Life: The Contemporary Debate, edited with Nadirsyah Hosen (Routledge, 2nd, paperback ed. 2013). He has written and researched in many aspects of court services and evaluation, and on technological limits to legal performativity. Social Research Policy and Planning PL, P.O. Box 338, Thirroul, NSW 2515, Australia

Francesco Contini, Istituto di ricerca sui sistemi giudiziari (IRSIG-CNR)

Francesco Contini is a senior researcher at the Research Institute on Judicial System of the Italian National Research Council (IRSIG-CNR), where he is coordinating the research area "Quality assessment in justice systems". He studies the institutional transformations of European judiciaries with focuses on case management, performance evaluation and e-justice. He has written various articles and books on such topics, among which “Judicial Evaluation” with Richard Mohr (VDM 2008), and ‘ICT and innovation in the public sector’, edited with Giovan Francesco Lanzara (Palgrave 2009). He has collaborated with international organizations in judicial reform programmes in Europe, Africa, and Asia. Istituto di Ricerca sui Sistemi Giudiziari (IRSIG-CNR), Via Zamboni, 27 Bologna. Italy. francesco.contini@irsig.cnr.it

Downloads

Published

13-02-2014

How to Cite

Mohr, R. and Contini, F. (2014) “Conflicts and Commonalities in Judicial Evaluation”, Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 4(5), pp. 843–862. Available at: https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/312 (Accessed: 19 April 2024).

Issue

Section

Conceptual and methodological issues