scholarly journals Perceptions of Lay Judges About Independence of the Judiciary

2020 ◽  
pp. 53-63
Author(s):  
Frans van Dijk
Keyword(s):  
General Public ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Selection Effects ◽  
Highly Educated

AbstractLay judges are citizens with particular knowledge of and experience with the judiciary. The findings of a survey among the lay judges of ten judiciaries are examined in this chapter. It is found that the perceptions of lay judges of judicial independence, their own as well as that of the professional judges, are very similar to the perceptions of the professional judges. In addition, lay judges are most positive about their independence, when they participate in judicial panels together with professional judges and when they are taken seriously by the professional judges. For them, these conditions surpass sitting alone as a judge. Although selection effects may play a role, the results indicate that experience as a lay judge leads to a much higher appreciation of judicial independence than that of (highly educated) citizens in general. This in turn indicates that the views of the general public are too negative about judicial independence.

scholarly journals Perceptions of Judicial Independence in European Countries

2020 ◽  
pp. 29-51
Author(s):  
Frans van Dijk
Keyword(s):  
General Public ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Highly Educated ◽  
Education Levels ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Lower Education ◽  
The Difference

AbstractThe perceptions of judicial independence of judges, lawyers, general public and companies are analysed across countries. The perceptions of these categories are strongly correlated. However, the mean scores differ: judges are much more positive about their independence than lawyers, and lawyers are much more positive than the general public and companies. As to the general public, highly educated citizens are generally more positive about the presence of independence than citizens with lower education levels. The difference increases with the degree of independence. Citizens with little education in very different countries have similar perceptions of judicial independence. The limited information that is available about court users suggests that persons with recent experience with the courts are less positive about independence than persons without experience. For companies the reverse is apparent. Among both the general public and companies, the perceptions diverge more with experience than without experience, likely as a result of winning or losing a case.

scholarly journals Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Frans van Dijk
Keyword(s):  
General Public ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Central Question

AbstractThe central question that this book will try to answer is whether there is a lack of alignment and—in the extreme—a disconnect between the judiciary and society in countries of Europe (EU and UK). This central question is developed into six sub questions. The sub questions focus on perceptions of judicial independence by various actors, their respect for independence and the trust of the general public in the judiciary.

scholarly journals Public attitudes towards e-cigarette regulations and policies in Taiwan

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chin-Shui Shih ◽  
Jean-Francois Etter
Keyword(s):  
General Public ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Design Studies ◽  
Highly Educated ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Nicotine Level ◽  
Education Campaigns ◽  
Past Half ◽  
Representative Samples

Background: There are various approaches to e-cigarette regulation globally. In Taiwan, the term “e-cigarette” is not found in existing regulations, but health authorities apply explanatory notes derived from standing laws to e-cigarette. Taiwan health authority is in the process of regulative reform to include “e-cigarette” in standing tobacco law. Our objective was to investigate the public’s attitudes towards potential policy options for e-cigarette regulations in Taiwan.Design and Methods: We conduct an anonymous online survey in the general public. A questionnaire in Mandarin was posted on the website Stop-tabac.ch between July and November 2017.Results: Participants (n=236) were mostly male, young, highly educated, employed, and smoked or had smoked cigarettes in the past. Half were e-cigarette users. Four measures banning e-cigarettes, labelling content and nicotine level and establishing a maximum-allowable nicotine level were supported by more than 70% of participants. Vaping status was strongly associated with support for most measures after controlling for other factors in multivariate models.Conclusion: We documented attitudes of a self-selected sample of the general public in Taiwan regarding e-cigarette regulations and policies. These results may be useful to design studies in more representative samples and to inform e-cigarette regulations, policies and education campaigns.

Managing the Selection Debate

2019 ◽  
pp. 125-158
Author(s):  
Charles Gardner Geyh
Keyword(s):  
General Public ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Performance Evaluations ◽  
Electoral Accountability ◽  
Judicial Selection ◽  
Judicial Performance

Chapter 6 argues that we can come closer to consensus in the judicial selection debate by confronting and overcoming the errors and exaggerations that chapter 5 isolates. That said, complete consensus is likely to remain elusive because ultimately, judicial independence from electoral accountability is both in tension with and essential to democracy. As the chapter discusses, appointive systems are a preferable default, but there are circumstances in which electoral accountability can be essential to the judiciary’s perceived legitimacy with the general public. The chapter also suggests ways in which elected judiciaries can be made more impartial and independent, including reforming campaign finance, amending disqualification rules, and lengthening judicial terms, as well as greater accountability, as well as the ways that appointed judiciaries can be made more accountable via publicizing existing accountability-promoting mechanisms, reinvigorating disqualification procedure, and instituting rigorous judicial performance evaluations.

The Influence of Online Seminars on Public’s Knowledge Regarding Covid-19 Prevention in Vulnerable Groups in The New Normal Era

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-24
Author(s):  
Apriyani Supia Dewi ◽  
Mariatul Fadillah ◽  
Pariyana ◽  
Rizma Adlia Syakurah ◽  
Anggraini Tiara Septiyana Gunawan
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Research Design ◽  
General Public ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
New Normal ◽  
Highly Educated ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Online Seminar

Covid-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) caused by Severe Acute Respiratory SyndromeCoronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) was declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020. A total of70,736 confirmed cases of Covid-19 and 3,417 deaths have been reported by theMinistry of Health (9 July 2020). Various steps have been taken to control the spreadof the Covid-19 pandemic that is currently happening in Indonesia, one of which ishealth promotion. During the Covid-19 pandemic, it was suggested that educationalmethods be better done online. So, this study is interested in assessing the effect ofeducational methods with online seminars through WhatsApps on the knowledge ofthe general public about the prevention of Covid-19 in vulnerable groups in the newnormal era. This study uses a research design quasi experimental pre and post testdesign by comparing the knowledge of respondents before and after observation.Observations were made when respondents attended online seminars on theprevention of covid-19 in vulnerable groups in the new normal era through theWhatsApp group. The population in this study were 471 people who were membersof the online seminar group carried out by the IKM-IKK FK Unsri department. In thisstudy, 100 respondents met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results of theunivariate analysis regarding the characteristics of the respondents obtained anaverage age 29.78 years old, female (69.0%), same as Islam (92.0%), highly educated(75.0%) and not yet working (58.0%) including students and students. It was foundthat the level of respondents’ knowledge about Covid-19 increased from 87.0% to99.0%. Comparative analysis showed a significant change in knowledge about theprevention of Covid-19 in vulnerable groups in the new normal era of respondentsafter attending an online seminar, namely p=0.012. So, it can be concluded thatonline seminars have a significant effect on changing the knowledge of the generalpublic about the prevention of Covid-19 in vulnerable groups in the new normal era.

scholarly journals Judicial Independence and Perceptions of Judicial Independence

2020 ◽  
pp. 7-28
Author(s):  
Frans van Dijk
Keyword(s):  
General Public ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Institutional Trust ◽  
European Level ◽  
Positive Perception ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Theoretical Considerations ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe three key concepts of this study are: perceived judicial independence, respect for judicial independence and trust in the judiciary. To provide the basis for the empirical chapters that follow, theoretical considerations are explored. Due to the subjective nature of independence, perceptions matter. According to European case law, the appearance of independence needs to be taken into account when the independence of a court is evaluated. The perceptions held by parties, lawyers, media, general public and judges are not homogeneous, and depend on different sets of factors. In the literature, it is widely believed that the judiciary needs a positive perception of independence to gain the trust of society. This trust in turn bolsters the legitimacy of the judiciary. Trust and legitimacy are many-faceted concepts. In this study trust is used in the sense of diffuse institutional trust. Respect for independence is used as an expression of the legitimacy of the judiciary. These concepts apply to the national courts and to the courts at the EU/European level. To understand judicial independence in Europe, both levels need to be examined in conjunction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document