Trust in the judiciary

In social contract theories, it is accepted that individuals delegate the right to judge to the state. While the power of adjudication and sanction lies with the state, the most fundamental expectation for those who delegate this right is to trust those who exercise it.

Trusting the judiciary means that when you appear before a court for any reason, you trust the judicial process and the decision that will be rendered. A trial that is in accordance with the law and procedure, fair, and conducted within a reasonable time is essential. Equal treatment, regardless of who the party involved is, is a prerequisite for trust in the judiciary in both judicial procedure and the application of laws.

In "trust in institutions" surveys conducted in our country, the question of which institution is trusted the most is asked. Unfortunately, the results shared show that trust in judicial institutions is extremely low. The rate of trust in law enforcement agencies working under the command of judicial institutions is higher than that of the judicial institutions themselves. I do not know whether only a single question is asked in these surveys/polls or if the research is detailed with multiple questions. It is my view that the concept of trust includes not only the belief in impartiality but also the expectation that judicial activity will be completed within a reasonable time.

In my opinion, the primary reason for the decline in trust in the judiciary in our country is the length of trial periods. Regardless of whether it is civil, criminal, or administrative litigation, the long duration of trials creates dissatisfaction and distrust among citizens.

The optional and mandatory mediation practices introduced to shorten durations and reduce the workload on courts do not ensure that trial periods are shortened. Even in a case that is not very complicated in terms of its legal nature, such as a rent determination lawsuit, it takes an average of three years to reach a verdict and exhaust legal remedies.

Justice delivered late satisfies no one.

For citizens and lawyers involved in cases where the subject is money, there is an insidious enemy to the extension of the trial period: inflation. In cases where legal interest is applied, the value of the receivable diminishes due to the high inflation in our country. In accordance with Article 1 of the Law No. 3095 on Legal Interest and Default Interest, the legal interest rate has been applied at 24% per annum since June 1, 2024. Before this date, the legal interest rate was 9%. When we consider the annual inflation rates announced by official and private institutions, the problem in disputes where legal interest is applied will be better understood. For the party in whose favor a judgment is rendered at the end of the trial, the extended duration creates a situation that can be considered a loss of rights.

It also causes financial losses for lawyers as well as their clients. Unless the attorney fee agreed upon with the client is collected in advance—which is generally not very common—payments spread over time erode against inflation. Similarly, attorney fees received from the opposing party suffer a loss of value as they are subject to the application of legal interest.

Another issue that I believe reduces citizens' trust in the judiciary is the inconsistencies between decisions rendered and the influence of public pressure on the judicial process. I would like to give an example from the institution of detention in criminal law. The second chapter of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 regulates the conditions for detention starting from Article 100 under the heading of Detention. The principle in our criminal law is to conduct trials without detention. Detention is an exceptional measure. The law has regulated the circumstances requiring detention in a clear and limited manner.

In some cases that the public is aware of, it is observed that the detention measure is applied in a way that is contrary to the conditions and purpose regulated by law. To put it more clearly, especially when there is an intense reaction against an event or a person on social media applications, detention decisions can be made even if it is contrary to the law. When a release decision is made shortly after, even if there has been no change in the conditions since the day of detention for the detained suspect, people inevitably begin to think that this decision was made with the approach of "let them stay for a while and be humbled."

It is sad that the detention measure has turned into a tool to satisfy public opinion.

Continuing with the same topic, even a decision that is in accordance with the law regarding a person who is a member of or close to the ruling party can become a subject of debate. The person's position makes the decision rendered a matter of debate. This example also reveals how dangerous the claim and belief that the judiciary is kept under pressure by the government is. Justice that is believed not to be distributed equally and fairly fuels social polarization.

Trust in the judiciary is not achieved by building large courthouses or wearing flashy robes.