Can justice be measured by the number of closed cases? Should a judge be concerned with enforcing the law or with meeting a statistical quota set by the managers of the judicial apparatus?
Abdollah Abdi - Abdi Media
Can justice be measured by the number of closed cases? Should a judge be concerned with enforcing the law or with meeting a statistical quota set by the managers of the judicial apparatus?
One of the noteworthy anomalies in the management structure of the judiciary is the dominance of quantitative indicators over the evaluation of the performance of prosecutors' offices and courts; a procedure that can affect the professional independence of judges, the quality of adjudication, and ultimately the rights of citizens.
In the statistical evaluation system, judicial branches are pressured to meet monthly performance targets. This situation may, especially in the final days of the month, shift the priority of handling from complex and time-consuming cases to simpler and quicker-return cases; not necessarily because of their legal importance, but to complete the statistics and meet managerial expectations.
This pressure is transmitted from the headquarters levels to provincial managers and from there to the heads of judicial districts and branches. In such a structure, what should be a tool for measuring productivity may become a factor for organizational pressure on judges and judicial staff.
The issue is not opposition to statistics, oversight, or accountability. The judicial apparatus cannot be run without performance evaluation; but there is a fundamental difference between measuring efficiency and turning justice into a race to close cases.
A case that requires reviewing dozens of documents, hearing witness testimony, and complex legal analysis cannot be placed on the same statistical scale as a simple case.
Therefore, it is necessary for the judiciary to review the performance evaluation system of branches; to set aside uniform and inflexible quotas and to consider indicators such as the quality of rulings, the strength of legal reasoning, compliance with legal deadlines, the complexity of cases, and the real facilities of the branches in evaluations.
Also, any administrative pressure to issue a ruling or close a case merely for the purpose of meeting a statistical quota must be prohibited, and judges and staff must be able to report managerial anomalies without fear of organizational consequences.
Judicial independence does not merely mean the judge's immunity from the interference of external institutions; the judge must also have independence against unjustified intra-organizational pressures.
One cannot expect judges to implement justice precisely, yet involve them in administrative pressures that may overshadow the accuracy and quality of adjudication.
The question to the high managers of the judiciary is this: Is the goal of the judicial apparatus to increase the number of closed cases or to realize justice in cases to which the fate of human beings is tied?
Justice is not measured by the number of closed cases; it is measured by the quality of vindicating people's rights.
Take less than a minute, register and share your opinion under this post.
Insulting or inciting messages will be deleted.
Sign Up