Taking Prior Experience Into Account When Evaluating Judicial Training: Some Empirical Findings - Socio-Legal Studies Association Annual Conference 2015

Newly-appointed judges


Aged 22-25


No legal experience


"Direct route" judges


Aged 30-40


Minimum 5 years legal experience


All other judges


Aged 27-65


Ranging 0 to 40 years in post


Undergo initial training for 2 years


Undergo induction training 2 months









NIM seminars on criminal law/procedure (+)


NIM seminars on criminal law/procedure (-)


judges


years of time in post (j and p)


experience in sentencing (j and p)


initial training useful


prosecutors


never went through continuous training (j and p)








2nd year court internship (+)


2nd year court internship (-)


initial training useful


lack of judicial experience


lack of sentencing experience


judge


prosecutor


no prior legal experience (j)


initial training


continuous training


intensive training








Usefulness of university training (+)


Usefulness of university training (-)


initial trainee


judicial experience (j and p)


amount of judicial experience (j and p)


no criminal experience (p)


amount of criminal experience (j and p)


initial training (j and p)


continuous training (j and p)








Usefulness of initial training (+)


Usefulness of initial training (-)


began initial training after 2004 (j and p)


years of time in post (p)


has prior legal experience (j)


has experience in criminal cases (j and p)





never went to continuous training sessions (j and p)


underwent intensive training (j and p)







Legal experience


Judicial exp.


Sentencing exp.


similar sentences


legal stipulation of aggravating & mitigating factors


landmark cases


landmark cases


pre-sentence reports


prosecutor's recommendations










Documentation phase


desk research on existing public sources regarding judicial training and sentencing in Romania;


other similar research conducted in Europe and overseas;


Exploratory phase


Main phase


12 training session observations for 8 types of formal training(initial, induction, continuous) – incl. lectures, seminars, mock trials (70+ observation hours in total);


10 semi-structured interviews with judicial trainers and trainees of all kinds (initial, induction, continuous).


private documents offered by the training institute and preliminary discussions with the institute managers.


large-scale pen-and-paper survey on 510 judges and prosecutors:


undergoing initial, induction and continuous training;


having between 0 and 40 years of judicial experience;


ranging from exposed to training for the first time to having attended dozens of training sessions throughout their career.


200+ documents in total














The sample
Why Romania?
A hybrid appointment and training system – great in controlling unwanted variables;
Judicial training practices have received recognition as best practices at European level (ENTJ);
Progressive management open to an independent assessment of their practices;
Key moment in the Romanian judiciary: the enactment of new criminal law and procedure codes.
Sampling
4
The learning cycle:
theory vs practice
9
Past training: appreciation comes with experience
8
Study findings
7
The research questions
Formal training
Overall usefulness of past initial judicial training in light of current practice
Most useful training methods (initial, continuous training)
Usefulness and feasibility of judicial skills training (judge craft)
Preference for different e-learning content and methods
Reflections on the overall usefulness of (past) university law training in the light of current experience
Informal learning
Use of various sentencing aids/tools in the first few years of practice;
Perceived impact of various factors in the sentencing exercise;
Subsequent contact with initial training peers and with the trainer, including the content and the methods of the contact;
Reaction when confronted with hard cases (if they would ask for advice and whom they would approach);
Reaction when confronted with cases very similar to those encountered in the past
6
The research phases
5
Assumption 1: judges learn all throughout their careers, both formally, through judicial training, and informally, through practice and by asking their peers for advice.
Assumption 2: judges' prior experience in judging and prior exposure to training influence their learning needs and expectations.
Main input variable: experience (judicial, sentencing, legal)
Main input variable: type and amount of exposure to other training (initial, continuous, university)
3
Informal learning: peer advice
Ask who?
Ask what?
10
Judicial craft
12
More experienced judges
diversify sentencing aids
11
"Legal" aids: 72-80% essential
Official sentence ranges for that specific offence
Relevant landmark cases
Legal indications of aggravating and mitigating factors ("sentencing guidelines")

"Non-legal" aids: 57-65% useful
Similar sentences at the same court
Similar sentences in other courts
Pre-sentence reports
Prosecutor's recommendations

Special category: judge's own experience in similar cases. 50% essential
43% useful
Learning to Sentence
Taking Prior Experience Into Account When Evaluating Judicial Training: Some Empirical Findings
1
Thank you!
Diana Richards
UCL Laws
© 2015
13
Main underlying question: how do judges learn how to judge?
Narrowed down to:
How do judges learn to sentence? (focus on sentencing)
How do judges themselves think they learn to sentence? (study of attitudes and perceptions)
2
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
Click to edit Master text styles
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
3/28/2015

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
3/28/2015

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master subtitle style
3/28/2015

#

10
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
3/28/2015

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
3/28/2015

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
Click to edit Master text styles
3/28/2015

#
"
"
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
3/28/2015

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
Click to edit Master text styles
Click to edit Master text styles
Click to edit Master text styles
Click to edit Master text styles
Click to edit Master text styles
3/28/2015

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
Click icon to add picture
Click to edit Master text styles
Click to edit Master text styles
Click icon to add picture
Click to edit Master text styles
Click to edit Master text styles
Click icon to add picture
Click to edit Master text styles
3/28/2015

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
3/28/2015

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
3/28/2015

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click icon to add picture
Click to edit Master text styles
3/28/2015

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
Click to edit Master text styles
3/28/2015

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
3/28/2015

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
3/28/2015

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click icon to add picture
Click to edit Master text styles
3/28/2015

#
Click to edit Master title style
3/28/2015

#
3/28/2015

#
Newly-appointed judges
Aged 22-25
No legal experience
Undergo initial training for 2 years
"Direct route" judges
Aged 30-40
Minimum 5 years legal experience
Undergo induction training 2 months
All other judges
Aged 27-65
Ranging 0 to 40 years in post
2nd year court internship (+)
judge
lack of judicial experience
lack of sentencing experience
intensive training
2nd year court internship (-)
prosecutor
no prior legal experience (j)
initial training
initial training useful
continuous training
Usefulness of university training (+)
judicial experience (j and p)
amount of judicial experience (j and p)
amount of criminal experience (j and p)
continuous training (j and p)
Usefulness of university training (-)
initial trainee
no criminal experience (p)
initial training (j and p)
Usefulness of initial training (+)
years of time in post (p)
has prior legal experience (j)
has experience in criminal cases (j and p)
underwent intensive training (j and p)

Usefulness of initial training (-)
began initial training after 2004 (j and p)
never went to continuous training sessions (j and p)
NIM seminars on criminal law/procedure (+)
prosecutors
years of time in post (j and p)
experience in sentencing (j and p)
initial training useful
NIM seminars on criminal law/procedure (-)
judges
never went through continuous training (j and p)
Documentation phase
desk research on existing public sources regarding judicial training and sentencing in Romania;
other similar research conducted in Europe and overseas;
private documents offered by the training institute and preliminary discussions with the institute managers.
200+ documents in total
Exploratory phase
12 training session observations for 8 types of formal training(initial, induction, continuous) – incl. lectures, seminars, mock trials (70+ observation hours in total);
10 semi-structured interviews with judicial trainers and trainees of all kinds (initial, induction, continuous).
Main phase
large-scale pen-and-paper survey on 510 judges and prosecutors:
undergoing initial, induction and continuous training;
having between 0 and 40 years of judicial experience;
ranging from exposed to training for the first time to having attended dozens of training sessions throughout their career.

Percent of respondents (N = 267)



Legal experience
similar sentences
legal stipulation of aggravating & mitigating factors
landmark cases
Judicial exp.
landmark cases
Sentencing exp.
pre-sentence reports
prosecutor's recommendations

28/03/2015

Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level

#
Reasons for contacting the NIM trainer

Confronted with a difficult sentencing decision, would you welcome the advice of