Is “justice hurried actually justice buried”? An organisational perspective of the Italian criminal justice

Abstract

PurposeThis study investigates the presence of a productivity–quality trade-off in judicial decisions from an organisational standpoint, focusing on the courts as bureaucracies. Applied to the Italian context and focusing on criminal courts, the main question addressed is whether or not increasing productivity diminishes decision quality.Design/methodology/approachDirectional distance function (DDF) models were utilised to assess productivity. Two-sample t-tests are then used to compare the quality of efficient and inefficient units in first instance and appeal, with the aim to determine whether a productivity–quality trade-off exists.FindingsThe study’s approach yields results that differ from previous studies. (1) The Italian judicial system is found less efficient. (2) The efficiency of the courts of first instance is relatively uniform. In contrast, there is a difference in efficiency between northern and southern courts of appeal, with northern courts on average being more efficient. (3) The analysis reveals a statistically significant productivity–quality trade-off when the courts of appeal are considered.Research limitations/implicationsNew evidence of a judicial system is presented, suggesting reforms regarding “reasonable time” as the optimal balance between quality and productivity.Originality/valueThe organisational framework leads to evaluating the efficiency of the courts by considering the various types of proceedings based on the gravity/complexity of the cases. In light of the pyramidal structure of the justice system, the quality is then defined in terms of hierarchical control expressed as review rate.

Improving the analysis of the judiciary performance - the use of data mining techniques to assess the timeliness of civil trials

“…Related literature A consolidated way to measure the performance of judicial organisations, and to compare courts, national court districts and national judicial systems, is to analyse the flow of proceedings from the entry date to the exit date, in association with other data as the number of personnel, the level of decisions confirmed or modified by the last judicial tier, etc. (Troisi and Alfano, 2023). In general, the information system reports the entry date and the code of a case, the main events also with a date up to the decision and their formal publication.…”

“…, 2019). In any case, it is a challenging itinerary, because of the need to combine the managerial practices with the democratic principles (the autonomy and independence of the judiciary) and the goals of the judicial system (Garapon et Lassègue, 2018; Troisi and Alfano, 2023).…”

“…The improvement of managerial competences of the courts' judges with steering and coordination responsibilities (in Italy, the president of the Court and the presidents of the sections), the introduction of performance monitoring processes and quality indicators, the digitisation of the cases, and the development of more transparent relations with professional and general users, are some of the topics of this debate, based on the paradigm of "justice as a public service" (Vecchi, 2018;Vigour, 2018;Visser et al, 2019). In any case, it is a challenging itinerary, because of the need to combine the managerial practices with the democratic principles (the autonomy and independence of the judiciary) and the goals of the judicial system (Garapon et Lass egue, 2018;Troisi and Alfano, 2023).…”

“…Several reasons explain this interest, which has gone beyond the specific legal disciplines to involve public policy, management, economics and ICT studies. Originality/value -Considering the literature on the judiciary (Visser et al, 2019;Di Martino et al, 2021;Troisi and Alfano, 2023) the contribution differs as both the methodological approach and the predictive analysis considers the intrinsic differences that define cases belonging to different juridical matters performing a cross-sectional analysis, with a specific focus of process variants.…”