Productivity and efficiency in the evaluation of judicial activity

Abstract

The article raises the question of whether it is correct to use the term "efficiency" when evaluating judicial activity using quantitative indicators of judicial statistics. These indicators are focused on the departmental needs of a closed-in judicial system. The article shows that in relation to the assessment of the activity of courts according to judicial statistics, it is correct to use the term "productivity". The thesis of the article is that when evaluating the work of courts and judges, to distinguish productivity from efficiency. It is noted that the productivity of ships and their efficiency are not directly dependent. Particular attention is paid to determining what constitutes the effectiveness of judicial activity. The author comes to the conclusion that the effectiveness of judicial work can be investigated by studying the assessments of courts and judges by their "clients" - litigants, other persons involved in the case, society as a whole. Courts act effectively if their "reputation capital" increases in the eyes of society. The currently used indicators of judicial statistics should be replaced by an assessment of the effectiveness of justice based on a sociological study of the reputation of the judiciary. The judiciary should have its own structures to monitor changes in public opinion regarding the reputation of the courts. When considering a possible methodology for assessing the reputation of courts and judges, it is noted that it is not expressed in quantitative data. Shifting the emphasis in the evaluation of judicial activity to the study of efficiency will provide feedback to the judicial system with its "clients", will form additional motivation for judges to take care of their own reputation in the eyes of public opinion.