Tutkijana vai tuomarina?
Keywords:
tuomioistuimet, tuomarit, oikeustiede, autoetnografia, oikeuslähdeoppiAbstract
A researcher and a judge
The interaction between theory and practice has been characteristic for Finnish jurisprudence. Lawyers with practical working experience have entered postgraduate studies. Sometimes University researchers have been nominated as
judges. The judiciary may be considered as unique professional group among lawyers, since their work has a direct impact on jurisprudence as court decisions are commonly used as sources of law.
If a judge holds a doctorate, he or she has a double role in the field of law. It can be asked how he or she sees the role, especially in adjudication. In the article the answer is searched for by using autoethnography and qualitative research
as methods. The author has been able to use his own experiences as research material. Besides, the other judges in the District Courts and in the Courts of Appeals who have a doctorates in law were requested to write an essay on their
own thoughts about this topic. The request sent to 18 judges, of whom seven responded.
Judges with doctorates can be divided into two subcategories. The first is composed of judges who have worked in the court system before their postgraduate studies. The other group is composed of academic researchers who have
been appointed to judicial office. This division is clear also in the essays. Judges with previous academic careers have stronger connections to the Universities and a broader view of the significance of academic research.
The role of a judge has certain similarities to the role of a researcher, but there are also differences. Both make use of legal sources, but the judge normally has a more instrumental view on jurisprudence and legal sources. The researcher
can be freer and more creative. The case and its facts are binding on the judge. Professional experience can be seen very important for the profession of judge, as it has certain similarities to artisanal craftsmanship. Judges with different backgrounds had different expectations regarding academic research. Both groups expressed worries about the current state of Universities and how the needs of legal professions are met in the academic study of law. In general, the interaction between courts and Universities was seen as fruitful for both sides. Some judges had links to university research, mostly by writing legal articles or teaching either at University or in continuous professional education.
The interaction between theory and practice has been characteristic for Finnish jurisprudence. Lawyers with practical working experience have entered postgraduate studies. Sometimes University researchers have been nominated as
judges. The judiciary may be considered as unique professional group among lawyers, since their work has a direct impact on jurisprudence as court decisions are commonly used as sources of law. If a judge holds a doctorate, he or she has a double role in the field of law. It can be asked how he or she sees the role, especially in adjudication. In the article
the answer is searched for by using autoethnography and qualitative research as methods. The author has been able to use his own experiences as research material. Besides, the other judges in the District Courts and in the Courts of
Appeals who have a doctorates in law were requested to write an essay on their own thoughts about this topic. The request sent to 18 judges, of whom seven responded. Judges with doctorates can be divided into two subcategories. The first is composed of judges who have worked in the court system before their postgraduate studies. The other group is composed of academic researchers who have been appointed to judicial office. This division is clear also in the essays. Judges with previous academic careers have stronger connections to the Universities and a broader view of the significance of academic research.
The role of a judge has certain similarities to the role of a researcher, but there are also differences. Both make use of legal sources, but the judge normally has a more instrumental view on jurisprudence and legal sources. The researcher
can be freer and more creative. The case and its facts are binding on the judge. Professional experience can be seen very important for the profession of judge, as it has certain similarities to artisanal craftsmanship.
Judges with different backgrounds had different expectations regarding academic research. Both groups expressed worries about the current state of Universities and how the needs of legal professions are met in the academic study of law. In general, the interaction between courts and Universities was seen as fruitful for both sides. Some judges had links to university research, mostly by writing legal articles or teaching either at University or in continuous professional education.
