hit tracker
Thursday, July 18, 2024
HomeLatest NewsLack of organization or poorly compensated staff, the problems of justice

Lack of organization or poorly compensated staff, the problems of justice

Date: July 18, 2024 Time: 10:32:46

The problems of the functioning of justice are very varied. An outdated territorial plant, a poorly compensated staff, not sufficiently organized or managed, a body of judges and magistrates with a very limited career and a territorial and jurisdictional organization thought in such a dysfunctional key that it could well be thought that it was conceived so that the system does not will never work.

The final result is that society does not perceive that this service is such. The slowness, the delay and the additional problems to enforce the judgment are conditioning the credibility of the system and it is enough to see the evolution of sociological studies in this matter.

Additionally, the problems are not only for citizens, but also for the economic world and the market. Hence, when possible, due to their own economic capacity, extrajudicial solutions to conflicts between parties are sought. Time and solvency become essential elements for economic agents who often do not find the solution they need in the judicial system.

In this state of affairs, Justice abandoned by the Public Powers, by the political parties and by all those who have responsibilities, in particular, the reform of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction of June 2023 is produced in a Royal Decree-law, dictated one summer afternoon, and in which the only thing missing was to change the course of the world.

The contentious-administrative jurisdiction is extremely relevant in a State. It is the form of control of power. It is the fight of David against Goliath. It is an unequal but exciting fight because, finally, it is what gives credibility to the legal system by verifying how the Public Powers can be corrected by an independent, professional and organized court. It is the closure of the system and the most credible element in a judicial system.

However, RDL 5/2023 has wanted to carry out the justice service to a “model” service. It is committed to standardization, the categorization of matters, the resolution of one and the application to many or all of the criteria set by the highest Court. At this point, a peaceful rebellion against model justice is reasonable because at the end of this model is the artificial intelligence that will better select the issues and the categorization.

Somehow it is necessary to prevent and raise your voice to return to effective protection its true value, the value of the analysis of one’s own position, of the arguments, of the reasoning and of the requests themselves. Categorizing by subjects or types of issues and favoring a model sentence -even if the model is made by the Supreme Court- distances society from justice in the same way that it would distance patients from medicine who would operate on them with the neighbor’s x-ray for the simple fact that the pathology is common.

Citizens, companies, and Public Administrations invest money and time in seeking their best defense, in arguing their peculiarities, in short, in fighting for “what is theirs” with their weapons, with their arguments, with their professionals, with their processes. . All this moves a volume of efforts and money that cannot be defrauded with the “packaging” of issues by type of matter and/or questions raised.

These steps are going in the wrong direction. The operation of a service does not involve achieving “model solutions” or “approximate” but rather thinking about what is wrong, managing deficiencies, getting it to work but working in terms of satisfaction.

It’s really going to be very difficult to make users model solutions, even if the model is set by the Supreme Court. On the contrary, we need the Supreme Court to have the necessary means to avoid having to “package”, so that the courts can analyze their issues by applying jurisprudence reasonably and being aware that progress and change in jurisprudence comes from the perception that, very often, is assumed before anyone else by the Courts of Instance. If the lower courts hand out models, jurisprudence will not evolve, social perception will not be introduced into the application of the rules and, in general, everything will end up subjected to a degree of stagnation that is very dangerous for the evolution of society itself.

Management problems must have management solutions, but not confuse the processing and resolution of issues with the reduction or intensity of the judge’s prosecution. Believing in the criteria, in the vision, in the knowledge and in the delivery of the heads of the jurisdictional bodies is what keeps us from accepting solutions that preserve the material content of the resolution just because there is a traffic jam (this is what the Explanation of reasons). The jam is a management problem and the solution should not affect the system.

The intensity of knowledge and resolution of each issue is what makes us all believe in justice. Winning or losing is not inconsequential if one finds a justification and an authorization/disavowal of your arguments. This is true service and not a fastest delivered model. The and the “bundling” will irreducibly lead us to artificial intelligence that surpasses us in these processes, but not in the argumentative formulation of the difference and of the application criteria.

With the maximum joke we can shout to the wind that the changes of the summer afternoons can be done with soda and without affecting the system.

* This website provides news content gathered from various internet sources. It is crucial to understand that we are not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information presented Read More

Puck Henry
Puck Henry
Puck Henry is an editor for ePrimefeed covering all types of news.

Most Popular

Recent Comments