我國法官績效評估制度之研究－以審判行為為核心

THE SYSTEM OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR THE JUDGES IN REPUBLIC OF CHINA ON TAIWAN- FOCUS ON THE ADJUDICATIVE BEHAVIORS OF JUDGES

黃瑞華(Juei-Hwa Huang)

指導教授 ： 張重昭

共同指導教授 ： 劉順仁

國立臺灣大學/管理學院/高階公共管理組/碩士(2006年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2006.02310

摘要

本研究主題為我國法官績效評估制度，且以法官審判行為為研究核心。目的是希望建構一套有效可行的法官審判行為績效評估方法及衡量指標，進而以衡量出來的資訊，對內提供法官作為自我改進依據，使法官審判行為表現更符合人民賦與法官審判權之目的及社會對司法的期待，提升司法公信力；同時供司法經理者，據以制定司法改進措施及法官人事制度相關的策略，以達憲法設計司法機關作為保障民權、實現國家刑罰權及制衡行政、立法二權的憲法機關目的；對外可依法院績效評估成果的具體數據，向立法院、媒體及國人說明司法預算執行績效；同時得據以對應外界用「法院刻板印象」或「過時的法院經驗」評價司法公信，使法官的集體努力得到應有的社會評價，「法官」這個職位能得到國人的肯定與敬重。
本文第壹章為緒論，說明本文研究動機、研究方向、範圍與限制。第貳章為文獻探討，介紹績效評估的意涵、企業組織及政府行政機關的績效評估制度。第參章介紹美國法曹協會所訂，具法律效力，為全體法官遵守的「法官行為模範法典」，並參考美國下列各州的法官績效衡量實務，即亞利桑那州事實審法院法官績效衡量標準、德拉瓦州家事法院法官績效衡量、猶他州法官的選取與評量、新罕布夏州法官審判行為績效衡量、新罕布夏州法官績效評量計畫執行年度報告、2004年、2006年內華達州克拉克郡地方法院法官績效衡量問卷調查及問卷調查結果報告等資料，再歸納整理出美國主要的法官績效評估方法及其衡量指標。第肆章則介紹我國現行法官的績效考核方法及衡量指標，兼及司法院、高等法院對各級法院法官審判行為的職務監督管考函示，經整理後與美國制度作比較，了解我國制度不足及他人值得仿效之處。第伍章引用第貳、參、肆等章所介紹內容，試以平衡計分卡架構及標竿學習精神，擬定我國法官績效評估制度的策略目標、績效衡量指標及達成組織目標的相關行動方案(策略)，試圖為我國法官審判行為績效評估制度提出解決方案，以協助我國法官達成司法組織目標、完成憲法機關使命，贏得人民對司法的信任。

關鍵字

績效評估制度 ； 績效評估方法 ； 策略目標 ； 績效衡量指標 ； 行動方案(策略) ； 司法公信力 ； 法官績效衡量問卷調查 ； 平衡計分卡 ； 標竿學習

並列摘要

The subject of this research dissertation is about the system of performance evaluation for the judges in Republic of China on Taiwan. The core of this research will focus on the adjudicative behaviors of judges. The objective of this research is to establish a set of practical and effective method to evaluate the performance of the judges’ adjudicative behaviors as well as a weighted index with which to generate information that can serve as a basis for the judges’ self-improvement. Ultimately, we hope that as a direct result of the performance evaluation system, the adjudicative behaviors of judges will conform more closely with the adjudicative power that the people has bestowed upon the judges as well as society’s expectation of the judiciary. Concurrently, the judicial performance evaluation system will be provided to the Judicial Yuan as a basis to institute enhancement measures and related strategies regarding personnel system affecting judges so that the constitutional design for judicial agency could be materialized in terms of being a guarantor that assures the protection of civil rights, while serving its check-and-balance function vis-à-vis the Legislative Yuan and the Executive Yuan, and implementing the national penal system. The specific statistical data that is garnered from the performance evaluation of the courts can be used to demonstrate and justify to the Legislative Yuan, the press and the public at-large about the results in implementing the judicial budgets. At the same time, the judicial performance system can be used to change and overcome the public’s assessment of judicial credibility based on “rigid stereotypical impression of the courts” or their “outdated experience with the courts” so that the collective efforts of the judges would receive the society assessment that they rightfully deserve and that the position of “judges” would receive the public’s affirmation and respect.

The first chapter of this research dissertation will be the Introductory Preface, explaining about the motivation behind this research project, the general direction as well as the scope and limitation of this research.

The second chapter will be a bibliography, introducing the significant meaning of performance evaluation and the performance evaluation system in the context of enterprise organizations and governmental administrative agencies.

The third chapter will introduce the “ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct” that was established by the American Bar Association which provides minimum standards of conduct with which all judges must comply. At the same time, the research will compare as reference the actual efforts in judicial performance evaluation of various American states, including Arizona State (performance review standard for judges’ determination of issues of facts), Delaware State (performance evaluation by the Family Court), Utah State (the selection and assessment review), New Hampshire State (judicial performance review, annual reports on the implementation plan of the judicial performance evaluation), Nevada State (the 2004 and 2006 results of Clark County’s judicial performance evaluation survey), etc. Then, after organizing all the information present, a conclusion will be drawn regarding the main methods of judicial performance evaluation and its weighted index.

The fourth chapter will introduce the current method that Taiwan uses in judicial performance review as its weighted index, and the letter announcement issued by the Judicial Yuan, the High Court and other levels of courts regarding the managing/auditing of adjudicative behaviors. A comparison will then be drawn between the U.S. system and the Taiwan system for the purpose of understanding deficient areas in the Taiwan system of judicial performance evaluation as well as the exemplary areas in the U.S. system that is worthy of Taiwan’s emulation.

The fifth chapter will draw on the introductory content from chapters two, three and four. Balance Scorecards and Benchmarking will be used to draft the strategic target for the judicial performance evaluation system of Taiwan, performance evaluation index and the related action plan for reaching these organizational objectives, in an attempt to propose solution plan to the implementation of judicial performance evaluation in Taiwan. The ultimate purpose of all this research study is to help the judges in Taiwan reach the target set by the Judicial Yuan, as part of the mission of an agency promulgated by the Constitution, and win the public’s trust toward our judicial system.

並列關鍵字

Performance Evaluation System ； Performance Evaluation Methods ； Strategic Goal ； Performance Evaluation Index ； Action Plan (Strategies) ； Judicial Credibility ； Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey Inquiry ； Balance Scorecard ； Benchmarking

參考文獻

1.Brian Kennedy著，談法官評鑑，蔡兆誠譯，編於蔡兆誠著，最好與最壞的

16.財團法人法律扶助基金會，周年報告書，2004.7.1.─2005.6.30，財團法

志安譯，揚智文化事業股份有限公司出版，初版，1998年

3.財團法人民間司法改委員會2005.12.21司法滿意度調查結果記者會新聞稿

11.財團法人民間司法改革基金會1996年第3屆立法委員司法問題問卷調查報