| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺北大學 === 犯罪學研究所 === 98 === Judges and prosecutors possess high social status, are recognized for their professional knowledge, and for their power to make key decisions on behalf of the wider society. In recent years, violations of judicial discipline have been frequently reported. People are naturally disappointed and concerned when media reports such misconduct. Therefore, it is pressing to research any risk factors that may underly such misconduct and to make recommendations to prevent such behavior occurring.
This study analyzed 51 formal disciplinary sanctions which were issued by the Commission on the Disciplinary Sanctions of Functionaries published in the Judicial Yuan gazettes from 1998 to March 2009. The results identified the types and characteristics of unethical conduct by judges and prosecutors. This study also included in-depth interviews, a qualitative approach, with 7 judges and prosecutors as well as 3 ethics personnel; the purpose was to better understand the symptoms, types and risk factors for different types of unethical conduct of judges and prosecutors with the assistance of the expert informant’s extensive experience. This study will help hopefully improve the effectiveness of the existing management mechanisms and the development of preventive strategies.
The results indicate that：(1) Judiciary misconduct can be predicted by six indicators. The most common indicator is frequent participation in events which may cause conflicts of interests (COI) or presence in inappropriate places. (2) The most common unethical behavior among judges and prosecutors are: attending inappropriate social activities which may lead to COI, presence in inappropriate places, and the abuse of authority. Accepting bribes and the abuse of authority are among the most serious unethical behaviors. (3) All of the five unethical behaviors involve risk factors at the personal level, while organizational or institutional factors can predict certain types of unethical behavior. (4) Routine Activity Theory can explain unethical behaviors such as receiving financial benefit or special treatment by abusing the public office, but not for the occurrence of improper male-female interaction. Unethical behaviors like presence in improper places may be explained by Differential Association Theory. Techniques of the Neutralization Theory can explain unethical behavior such as influencing the deferral of a trial, delaying the delivery of the judgment, entering inappropriate places, and lobbying. (5) The existing practice of preventive measures has only limited effects. (6) Those interviewed recommended that preventive strategies should include both “self-regulation” and external-regulation”.
This study suggests that：additional training courses are important "Case study on job-related crimes or disciplinary offenses for judges " within the Sheriff Trainings of Training Institute For Judges and Prosecutors, Ministry of Justice . Legislative actions - (1) To complete the law for “Rules of Ethics for Judges” (2) To approve the draft of "Law on Judges" . Systemic action - (1) need for transformational leadership (2) Reduction of litigation cases to deal with Judges work stress. Finally, specific ethical action - (1) Actually implementing "Act on Property-Declaration by Public Servants " as well as enhancing the review and investigation on relevant cases. (2) Actually implementing the Ethics Directions for Civil Servants, actually implementing the registration of requesting affairs , receiving gifts , social gathering and other matters related integrity and ethics. (3) Enhancing promotion for public prosecutors on refusing hospitality from police officers. (4) Continually enhancing the function of the Special ethics team.
|
|---|
