The head of the Judicial Inspection criticizes the public debate on the pensions of the magistrates: “It is descended in an area of non-professionals”

Roxana Petcu, the head of the Judicial Inspection, intervenes in the debate on the special pensions of the magistrates, accusing that the theme was diverted from the professional area to a populist and emotional one. In a Facebook post, she points out that real discussions should be carried out with theorists of law and the academic environment, not “people who have met someone who lost a trial.” Petcu points out that the problem is not as much as “deserving” justice, but what kind of justice we want as a society.

I perfectly understand the passion and anger that many pension commentators manifest. In reality, the dissatisfaction aims – rightly – the fact that the average pension in Romania is extremely small and does not allow a truly decent living.

He argues that indignation often turns into a campaign to demonize justice, without a professional basis.

The demonization of the magistracy takes place under the conditions in which the whole discussion is descended into a non-professional area. I think the real questions we have to ask ourselves are not about how much justice is “worth”, but what kind of justice we want. And I will not refer here to material conditions, volume of work, etc. but to the system, to the model, from an ideological perspective.

She mourns the fact that, instead of consulting university professors, theorists of her law or specialists in the judicial system, public opinion is influenced by personal experiences or populist perceptions.

I have not seen to be invited any university professor, theoretician of the law, to expose his point of view about these aspects: is a popular justice preferable? Either on elective bases or on the jury system? Why, however, our great theorists have chosen a professional justice? (I do not refer to individual professionalism, but to theoretical way of organizing the judiciary). And, further, should these debates should not be carried with the academic environment? What can be part of the legal commissions or at least the reflection groups that advise the governors?

In his opinion, the real reform should start with a deep debate, carried by people with solid legal training, not by commentators on social networks.

If we really want to reform, wouldn't it be time to invite to expose their point of view and people who really master the subject? (No, those who knew someone who lost a process “with justice in hand” or people who “know exactly what is the job” do not fall into this category)

Justice lives on damage: decimated system, chaotic legislation and exhausted magistrates. The serious call of the Association of Prosecutors