Corruption in the judiciary violates the fundamental principle of equality before the law and deprives people of their right to a fair trial. In a corrupt judicial system, money and influence can determine which cases are prioritized or rejected. Perpetrators can get away with it, while victims have no answer and no justice. Simple reforms can prevent this. An independent body and public oversight can ensure that judicial appointments are based on merit and not favouritism. Judicial personnel should be properly trained and given fair salaries and pensions to make them less vulnerable to corruption. The personal accountability of judges for decisions should be limited and, in order to protect them from the pressure of powerful interests, only credible and transparent investigations should be carried out against them. Proponents of an open justice system claim many benefits. Greater coherence fosters respect for and observance of the law and confidence in the rule of law. It is also a crucial factor for investors, who are particularly concerned about the predictability of the justice system.
Our court created a Twitter account to restore trust. In Argentina, the judiciary is the institution with the least public trust. Through this report, we publish all judgments, hearings, staff resumes and the judge`s personal leave. This is not the norm in our country and represents a revolutionary innovation that also requires a profound cultural change on the part of public servants and our users. We`ve improved engagement with the public and inspired other teams to provide more efficient service. Transparency holds the police and actors in the criminal justice system – judges, lawyers and juries – to account. Accountability creates trust in these entities. If we, the people, do not trust the police and the judicial system, we have no interest in these systems and, therefore, no reason to abide by the rules that govern them. In summary, improving transparency and access to information makes the judiciary more independent and effective, and strengthens citizens` trust and respect in its judgments and judicial institutions. It can also have a significant positive impact on the external perception of a country`s judicial system and promote confidence and foreign investment. Why is it important for the public to know the rules that govern what the police can and cannot do? Now, what is the rule in Santa Clara for members of the public who register the police? Do you know when Santa Clara police officers have to identify with you? In San Jose, there are rules to see. You can find out exactly what the rules are regarding the admission of police officers in San Jose.
In Santa Clara, I have no idea about these rules. But you, the people, have a right to know, although in most cases you do not. The public – you – should demand that all police services put their service manuals online. There is simply no place for secrecy in our criminal justice system. The events in Ferguson, Staten Island, Cleveland and beyond have once again drawn attention to our criminal justice system and police services. At the heart of the problems these events have signaled is race: a problem that permeates the lives of all Americans of all colors. The race is fraught with all kinds of problems, so many that trying to confront and solve them is overwhelming for me and certainly cannot be solved in my lifetime. Operational data can be very useful in assessing how judges compare to a pre-established standard or to each other, but it can also be misused or misunderstood. For example, statistics are sometimes used by the media or the public to « rank » judges in a particular jurisdiction, or to suggest that judges who are below average on a particular measure (which, by definition, must include half of the judges evaluated) are somehow failing in their duties.
For this reason, judicial systems are reluctant to disclose all the operational data they collect. For example, attendance data is compiled by the U.S. Court Administration Office by district, but is not published, and data on individual judges is not even compiled. Within the rule of law community, there is an open justice initiative to make the justice system more transparent. [16] Making this statistical information available to citizens not only contributes to greater transparency of judicial systems, but also increases interaction between courts and civil society. It also allows citizens to learn about the functioning and workload of judges. IDLO is committed to the rule of law both because of sustainable development and as an essential catalyst, and our decades of experience have shown us the link between legal transparency and sustainable development. By ensuring stable and transparent legal systems, the rule of law promotes investment, trade and economic development. Institutional information on the courts is the most difficult for the public to access, and perhaps for good reason.
There is little public demand for details, such as the number of IT employees or expenses for courthouse maintenance. In addition, congressional committees serve as watchdogs on certain court cases to ensure that money is spent wisely. And institutional information is not always taboo: in circumstances of great public interest in the internal affairs of the courts, such as the above-mentioned Working Group on Judicial Conduct or proposals for committees to amend the rules of procedure or evidence, it is in the interest of the Court to make public at least some details of its internal procedures.