如何杜絕恐龍法官? - 經濟

※ 引述《MicroMacro (dodoron)》之銘言：
: from：商業周刊　1237期　請問經濟達人　專欄
: Q：現在有些「恐龍法官」判決很離譜，有辦法解決嗎？
: A：我們有判決離譜的「恐龍法官」，為什麼沒有亂打當事人官司的「恐龍律師」？也沒聽
: 過有亂搞屋主裝潢的「恐龍設計師」，更沒亂煮食物不管顧客的「恐龍廚師」。為什麼
: 會有這種差別？
: 因為律師、設計師、廚師提供的服務，是消費者自願付錢購買，這些人也面臨同行競爭，
: 若他們的服務不符消費者期望，消費者會棄他們而去，他們就失去收入。
: 但是法官不管認真判案或亂判一通，全體納稅人都還是要被迫付錢給法官，法官收入和其
: 判決品質完全不相干。而且，當前法院是壟斷的，沒有其他同行競爭，即使某法官過去
: 「恐龍」的劣跡班班，當事人碰上了也只能自認倒楣，無法自由選擇找其他法院來審理，
: 這就是「恐龍法官」存在的原因。
: 政府提供的服務，市場可用更有效率、代價更低的方式提供，原因是市場有「自願付費、
: 開放競爭」兩個特色，政府提供的服務─如司法判決，就缺乏這兩個特色。
: 因此，要淘汰恐龍法官，就要用已被證明最有效的方式：使用者自願付費、法院開放競
: 爭。
: 如果法官不再靠納稅人出錢供養，而須仰賴官司當事人付費；如果官司仲裁不再交給壟斷
: 的法院，而是可讓當事人自由選擇其他法院，在這種競爭壓力下，法官判決就會盡力做到
: 「公正、效率」，因為唯有提升判決品質，法官才能得到官司當事人青睞賺到收入，這和
: 企業想在市場生存，就得提供好的產品服務是一樣道理。
: 若法官罔顧證據違法亂判，其他想打官司的當事人，就不會再去請這種法官審理，這個法
: 官就失去收入，法官變成「恐龍」的誘因，就會比法官收入和其判決品質無關、法院是壟
: 斷的現行制度要小。
: 十八世紀的英國就實行過法院競爭制度，經濟學之父亞當．斯密(Adam Smith)的《國富論
: 》裡，早已清楚說明。
: 人們之所以上法院，是因為別人不正當行為侵害他們的權利，這些因為法院判決而被恢復
: 權利的人，正是法官判決「服務」的受益者。因此亞當．斯密認為，「司法的費用，來自
: 受益於法院判決的人所付的規費，是很恰當的做法。」
: 英國當時各法院法官的收入，不是來自人民稅金，而是當事人的付費，當事人完全可以自
: 由選擇哪個法院來審理他們的案子。在這種競爭下，每一個法官都努力的對每一種不公平
: ，在法律允許的範圍內，給予最快和最有效的救濟，以吸引更多案件上門。亞當．斯密說
: ：「目前(十八世紀)英國令人羨慕的法庭體系，是各法庭法官間的競爭塑造出來的。」
: 因此，亞當．斯密指出的「自願付費，開放競爭」法院競爭體系，正是對「恐龍法官」離
: 譜判決的最好解決辦法。

This scheme of making the administration of justice subservient
to the purposes of revenue, could scarce fail to be productive
of several very gross abuses. The person who applied for justice
with a large present in his hand, was likely to get something more
than justice; while he who applied for it with a small one was
likely to get something less. Justice, too, might frequently be delayed,
in order that this present might be repeated. The amercement,
besides, of the person complained of, might frequently suggest
a very strong reason for finding him in the wrong, even when
he had not really been so. That such abuses were far from being
uncommon, the ancient history of every country in Europe bears
witness.

A stamp-duty upon the law proceedings of each particular court,
to be levied by that court, and applied towards the maintenance
of the judges, and other officers belonging to it, might in the same
manner, afford a revenue sufficient for defraying the expense of
the administration of justice, without bringing any burden upon
the general revenue of the society. The judges, indeed, might in
this case, be under the temptation of multiplying unnecessarily
the proceedings upon every cause, in order to increase, as much as
possible, the produce of such a stamp-duty.It has been the cus-
tom in modern Europe to regulate, upon most occasions, the payment
of the attorneys and clerks of court according to the number
of pages which they had occasion to write; the court, however,
requiring that each page should contain so many lines, and each
line so many words. In order to increase their payment, the attorneys
and clerks have contrived to multiply words beyond all necessity,
to the corruption of the law language of, I believe, every
court of justice in Europe. A like temptation might, perhaps, occasion
a like corruption in the form of law proceedings.

When the judicial is united to the executive power, it is scarce
possible that justice should not frequently be sacrificed to what is
vulgarly called politics. The persons entrusted with the great interests
of the state may even without any corrupt views, sometimes imagine it
necessary to sacrifice to those interests the rights of a private man.
But upon the impartial administration of justice depends the liberty
of every individual, the sense which he has of his own security. In order
to make every individual feel himself perfectly secure in the possession
of every right which belongs to him, it is not only necessary that the
judicial should be separated from the executive power, but that it should
be rendered as much as possible independent of that power. The judge
should not be liable to be removed from his office according to the caprice
of that power. The regular payment of his salary should not depend
upon the good will, or even upon the good economy of that power.

最後面應該才是A. Smith真正的看法吧?

--