论文部分内容阅读
司法考评机制通常都侧重于对司法工作结果的考评,如人均结案数、均衡结案率、上诉率、调解率等,但这种考评机制的客观性又时常受到怀疑。即使比率很高,也未必得到社会好评。与这种内部考评机制相比,美国加利福尼亚州开展的司法公信力评估侧重外部评价,以司法工作的公众认可度为标尺,督促法院改进工作,真正反映了司法工作的社会效果,且省时省力。1992年美国加州开展了第一次司法公信力评估,2005年开展了第二次。评估工作由法官、律师和法学专家共同设计评估问卷,然后委托第三方开展评估调查。法院将评估结论用于帮助自己认清形
Judicial evaluation mechanisms usually focus on judging the outcome of judicial work, such as the number of successful cases per capita, the rate of completion of disputes, the rate of appeals, the rate of conciliation, etc. However, the objectivity of such evaluation mechanisms is often under suspicion. Even if the rate is high, it may not be well received by the community. Compared with this internal evaluation mechanism, the assessment of the credibility of the judiciary in California in the United States focuses on external evaluation, and uses the public recognition of judicial work as a yardstick to urge the court to improve its work. It truly reflects the social effect of judicial work and saves time and effort. In 1992, California conducted its first assessment of judicial credibility and conducted its second mission in 2005. Assessment work by judges, lawyers and legal experts to design assessment questionnaire, and then commissioned a third party assessment survey. The court used the assessment findings to help shape it