Newspaper article/ column ' De rechtsstaat' ( the State of law, the nation of law) , written by Folkert Jensma. Title: Goede rechters en dan toch matige rechtspraak ( Good judges, mediocre law practice)
I analysed the column on probably factual information :
-Ruth de Bock is a judge/ counselor in the city of Amsterdam
-Ruth de Bock wrote a 'pre-advice' with the title:' Grip op kwaliteit' ( Grasping quality)
-Targetgroup for writing was: United Dutch lawyers.
-The pre-advice is reviewed in 'magazine for Dutch lawyers'
-Besides six times 'Judges should....' and two times 'Judges should not....', de Bock writes about three notions . First the notion of ' The unguarded field of quality', secondly, the notion of 'Judges do not have a consensus on the understanding of 'good justice' ( four focusses are distinguished: 1. Temporality, 2. Professionality, 3. Autonomy, 4. 'Europe'. Third notion: impartial and independent judges are no guarantee for 'good quality' of jurisdiction.
Reasons/ arguments are given:
1. The company culture can be characterized as hiërarchical, causing difficulties with testing existing practises again
2. About the education of judges
3. Knowledge building in jurisdiction has some weak spots
4. Courts of justice only manage mediocre complex cases, not the larger nor the minor ones.
Do I show, noting this, my detailed demarcation of the political, the law? Most judges work in cities, so I heard. Professionals, taking part in making city refubishments and city extensions?
I analysed the column on probably factual information :
-Ruth de Bock is a judge/ counselor in the city of Amsterdam
-Ruth de Bock wrote a 'pre-advice' with the title:' Grip op kwaliteit' ( Grasping quality)
-Targetgroup for writing was: United Dutch lawyers.
-The pre-advice is reviewed in 'magazine for Dutch lawyers'
-Besides six times 'Judges should....' and two times 'Judges should not....', de Bock writes about three notions . First the notion of ' The unguarded field of quality', secondly, the notion of 'Judges do not have a consensus on the understanding of 'good justice' ( four focusses are distinguished: 1. Temporality, 2. Professionality, 3. Autonomy, 4. 'Europe'. Third notion: impartial and independent judges are no guarantee for 'good quality' of jurisdiction.
Reasons/ arguments are given:
1. The company culture can be characterized as hiërarchical, causing difficulties with testing existing practises again
2. About the education of judges
3. Knowledge building in jurisdiction has some weak spots
4. Courts of justice only manage mediocre complex cases, not the larger nor the minor ones.
Do I show, noting this, my detailed demarcation of the political, the law? Most judges work in cities, so I heard. Professionals, taking part in making city refubishments and city extensions?
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten