What is the public perception of justice?

At the time of writing this article, there is a real tension between the justice system and the litigants, with criticisms coming from both sides.

I have decided to analyze, using AI technology, the general sentiment and main lines of criticism regarding the justice system, allowing me to also provide solutions concerning these issues.

I believe that the solution to the current conflict is dialogue and compromise. We will not be able to move past these periods without compromise, and I sincerely doubt the ability of some covert strikes to change anything in the measures that the government intends to adopt.

Similarly, I do not see how the reductions in the salary benefits of magistrates will inherently lead to improvements in the justice system. Likely, the quality of it will decline due to the lack of courage and confidence in the future that many magistrates feel.

My opinion is that the justice system cannot function as long as it lacks credibility, and credibility must be built and maintained over time through an active collaborative relationship between the beneficiaries of justice and its implementers. In the absence of genuine collaboration and a continuous escalation of animosities, the situation will be unfavorable for everyone.

Study methodologies

I used the CLAUDE-4.1-OPUS model (a frontier model from Anthropic) to conduct the analysis. I collected data from various social media posts and decided to summarize the conclusions of internet users below using AI to create an executive summary regarding the major lines of discussion.

While these do not represent the entire category of civil society / litigants, a compilation of demographic / psychographic information along with the data obtained from this analysis can indicate what measures need to be taken to address the current tensions.

The main sources for data selection are:

• Facebook (various posts regarding justice + comments)
• Written report (various articles, from multiple positions)
• Reddit (diverse posts + comments)

All data is from the recent period (the last year) to allow for a deeper understanding of current grievances.

It is worth noting that although the analysis is based on a relatively small sample size, the homogeneity of opinions indicates a consensus within the company regarding the highlighted aspects.

The difference between communication media relates to psychographic aspects that define each medium (Facebook as a generalist media, Reddit as a progressive platform, individuals with medium incomes, higher education, and the press being defined by various trusts, editorial teams, and their political directions).

Analysis - publications from print media (N=17)

The analysis of the 17 press articles paints a complex picture of current tensions, revealing a deeply divided media landscape that not only reflects but also fuels the rift of distrust between the judicial system and the general public.

The predominant emotions that pulse beyond the lines oscillate violently betweenoutrageandfrustrationcitizens, as they are reflected and validated by the press, and a sense ofasediuandinstitutional concernfrom the magistrates.

The press, far from being a unified actor, fragments along three distinct narrative axes: one critical-popular, one factual-neutral, and one pro-institutional, each contributing to the construction of a parallel reality.

Popular critic Axa

The most visible and vocal is the critical-popular axis, where widely-read publications such asObserver (Antenna 1), The truthand, in a more analytical manner,G4Media.roadopts a sharp tone towards the magistrates' protest.

These publications position themselves as the voice of the "nation," channeling a deep sense of frustration and simmering social envy. The editorial line is clear and striking: judges do not fight for abstract principles, but for concrete and unjustified "privileges."

The title ofObserver"Judges are on strike, despite the law prohibiting it. The judge earning €22,500 a month is calling for protests," is a prime example of negative framing, designed to incite outrage through the mere juxtaposition of an exorbitant sum with the act of protesting.

The bias is evident and effective, constructed through emotionally charged language, where terms like "privileges," "defiance," "chaos," or "mockery" become rhetorical tools.

Moreover, these publications strategically select their sources, amplifying the voices of critical politicians and, crucially, those of ordinary citizens. The quotes from the litigants, such as the one fromPRO TV News"In the world we live in, we should all be on strike, not just the judges" – is used to cement an irreconcilable dichotomy between the "people" and an arrogant, disconnected "judicial elite".

The editorial line of these media trusts thus merges with the public opinion they claim to reflect, assuming the role of a voice for popular discontent.

Axa factual

In contrast to this partisan approach, a second category of publications, such asRadio Romania Iasi, Digi24and, for the most part,PRO TV NewsIn its factual news, it tries to navigate the turbulent waters of conflict while maintaining a balanced position.

Here, the tone is predominantly neutral and informative, with emotion deliberately extracted from the editorial narrative and allowed to emerge only through quotes directly attributed to the sources.

The bias, although much reduced, can subtly creep in through the order of information presentation. For example, the repeated mention byDigi24The fact that the Minister of Justice "was not officially informed" about the protests may suggest, without directly stating it, a unilateral action and a lack of transparency on the part of the magistrates.

These publications do not express a definitive opinion but assume the classic role of an information platform, where the arguments of both sides are presented, allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions.

Institutional Axa

At the opposite end lies the pro-institutional axis, represented in the sample by niche publications such asThe Justice World (Luju.ro)Here, a counter-narrative is being constructed to defend the guild and legitimize the protest.

The tone is one of deep concern and professional solidarity, with the dominant emotion being that of a concerted siege on the independence of the judiciary. Deliberately using the terminology preferred by judges – "service pension" instead of "special," "status," "guarantees of independence" – serves as a form of discursive resistance.

The bias is as present as in the first category, but oriented in the opposite direction. The sources are selected with precision: the CSM communications and the opinions of certain judges are extensively quoted, with their arguments presented as rational and legally grounded.

To counter the accusation of the uniqueness of Romanian "privileges," similar protests from other European countries are brought into discussion in an effort to normalize and legitimize the action.

This editorial line does not reflect popular opinion but actively seeks to counter it, arguing that a strong justice system, including financial aspects, is a pillar of the rule of law and a long-term benefit for all citizens, even if this is difficult to accept in the current climate of widespread discontent.

Conclusions and interpretations

Analyzing the tensions reflected in the media and public sentiment, it becomes evident that the current conflict is not merely a technical dispute over a piece of legislation, but a symptom of a deep rupture of trust between the judicial system and society.

To overcome this impasse, Bold measures and structural reforms are necessary, both from the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) and at the legislative level..

1. CSM must abandon reactive, defensive, and closed communication filled with legal jargon. A proactive, transparent, and, above all, empathetic communication strategy is necessary.
   
   Instead of issuing corporate-sounding statements, the CSM should launch a national awareness campaign that explains to the general public, in simple terms, why an independent and financially stable magistrate is essential.the best guarantee for the citizen against abuse of power.
   
   It should demonstrate, with concrete data, the workload, the complexity of cases, and the psychological pressure that judges and prosecutors are subjected to. The narrative must shift from "we defend our status" to "we protect your rights, and for that, we need these guarantees."
2. To counter the accusation of being a "caste," the system must open up.
   
   The CSM should publish simplified periodic reports accessible to the public regarding the performance of courts (average duration of cases by type, resolution rate) and, especially, about the disciplinary sanctions applied to judges.
   
   When the public sees that the system cleanses itself of compromised elements, trust will begin to be rebuilt. A justice system that self-evaluates and sanctions transparently is a credible justice.
3. Instead of outright opposing the government project, the CSM should have presented its own counter-proposal for reform – one that is balanced, phased, and sustainable.
   
   A statement like: "We understand the budgetary pressure and public perception. Here is our 10-15 year plan for aligning with European standards, a plan that does not disrupt the system and ensures predictability" would completely change the dynamics of the negotiation. CSM must demonstrate that it is part of the solution, not just part of the problem.

Beyond communication, substantial legislative reforms are necessary to reflect a reasonable compromise between the needs of the system and the socio-economic realities of Romania.

Public Service Pension Reform

The current status of retirement is, objectively, unsustainable and an anomaly at the European level. A real reform should include:

• Gradual Increase of Retirement Age: The gradual alignment, over a predictable period of at least a decade, of the retirement age to a reasonable European average (e.g., 60-62 years). This would eliminate the perception of stark privilege and prevent a sudden exodus from the system.
• Decoupling of the Last Salary Pension:The pension calculation base should be the average income over a longer period (e.g., the last 5 years of activity), not the last salary, to eliminate the possibility of artificial increases just before retirement.
• Cap on Net Salary Level:It is inconceivable for a pension to exceed the net income from activity. Capping the pension at a reasonable percentage (e.g., 75-80%) of the average net income would eliminate a major source of public outrage while still maintaining a dignified standard of living for former magistrates.

Improving Performance and Working Conditions

Public dissatisfaction is directly linked to the efficiency of the justice system. The government and the CSM must collaborate to:

• Real and Urgent Digitalization:Reducing bureaucracy through the implementation of an electronic file system at the national level would free up valuable time for judges, allowing them to focus on the act of adjudication rather than on paperwork management.
• Delegation of Non-Judicial Duties of Magistrates:Hiring a sufficient number of clerks and judicial assistants would significantly reduce the workload of judges and prosecutors, thereby diminishing the burnout factor that contributes to the desire for retirement.

Essentially, the solution lies in a newsocial contract between justice and societyJudges must accept that certain privileges, established in a different context, are no longer sustainable and need to be adjusted.

In turn, society and the political class must understand that an effective and independent judiciary cannot be achieved with a demotivated, poorly paid corps of magistrates who are constantly subjected to pressure.

Without an honest dialogue and a painful but necessary compromise, both parties will lose, and the biggest loser in the end will be the rule of law in Romania.

Analysis - Reddit (N=6)

If traditional media acts as a filter, sometimes amplifying and other times tempering public emotions, the platform Reddit serves as an uncensored digital agora, where frustration, cynicism, and a pragmatic desire for solutions clash in a brutally honest dialogue.

Analysis of discussion threads on r/Romania and r/juridice reveals an almost complete breakdown of trust between the citizen-litigant and the justice system, a rupture that far exceeds mere dissatisfaction related to pensions.

The general sentiment is one ofdeep betrayalUsers do not just feel ignored, but actively mocked by a "caste" they perceive as not only privileged but also hypocritical and ineffective.

The discussion is dominated by a clear dichotomy: "we," the ordinary citizens who work until the age of 65 and support the state through taxes, versus "they," the magistrates who "retire at 47" with benefits deemed "outrageous" and who, in times of crisis, choose to defend their own financial interests at the expense of justice.

One of the most heated points of debate is itselfthe legality and morality of protestThe Reddit community, made up of many professionals with a technical understanding of things, sarcastically dismantles the semantic distinction between "protest" and "strike."

Users like daguerrotype_type explain in detail how this "non-strike" is a procedural trick, a form of defiance against the law by those who should uphold it, taking advantage of the fact that its illegality must also be determined by a judge. The emotion here is one of exaggeration: "not only do they break the law, but they do so with infinite audacity, knowing they can get away with it."

The user's attempt to mediate the discussion and introduce the judges' perspective is met with a wall of skepticism. Although his approach is constructive – "let's start a dialogue and seek solutions" – the community largely refuses to accept the arguments presented as being made in good faith.

The claim that "justice has made progress" is quickly contradicted by users like skywalkerze and geremere, who bring up the "golden age" of the DNA, when high-ranking politicians were frequently convicted, in stark contrast to the current silence.

The argument for lifting the CVM is seen not as a sign of progress, but as a cynical political negotiation in the geopolitical context. Responses like "Outrageous lies" or "Dialog my ass" indicate that, for many, trust has been completely eroded.

Nevertheless, beyond the anger, the discussion on Reddit proves to be a fertile ground foridentifying underlying issues and proposing concrete solutionsThe user Consistent-Low-0 highlights a systemic issue overlooked by the mainstream media:the absurdly high number of lawsuits per capita in Romaniathe largest in the EU.

This observation shifts part of the blame from the magistrates to a flawed legislative and administrative apparatus that "artificially creates grounds for lawsuits." Thus, a nuanced debate arises regarding the real causes of the system's overload.

The solutions proposed by the community are pragmatic and aim at systemic efficiency, not just the punishment of a specific professional category:

1. Legislative Reform and Deregulation:Simplifying laws and eliminating administrative procedures that unnecessarily push citizens into court.
2. Promotion of Mediation and Arbitration:Users such as Icy-Tour8480 and Zestyclose-Guava-255 propose the introduction of mandatory preliminary stages for alternative dispute resolution to relieve the courts.
3. Real Digitalization:The elimination of "debt recovery companies" and the management of these minor-repetitive litigations through a fully digitalized platform is another idea put forward by elefantulroz6942.
4. Accountability of the State:The user incorporation suggests that courts should award larger and bolder compensations in disputes with the state, thereby forcing the administration to stop abusing the judicial system.

Regarding the compromise, the community has a fewnon-negotiable pointsRaising the retirement age to a level comparable to that of the rest of the population and eliminating pensions that are not based on the principle of contribution are considered essential conditions for any future discussions.

Ultimately, discussions on Reddit reveal a paradox: while the level of anger and cynicism is extremely high, there is also a remarkable capacity to diagnose complex systemic problems and propose technical solutions.

The fundamental issue, however, remains one of trust. As long as judges are perceived as protesting solely for "money and benefits," ignoring the real issues faced by litigants, any attempt at dialogue will be doomed to failure, and the chasm between justice and society will only deepen.

Analysis - Facebook (N ≈ 18 + 100)

If Reddit represented the digital agora of pragmatic frustration, Facebook is becoming an arena of raw emotions, a public tribunal where the verdict has already been rendered, and the anger is visceral and unappealable.

An analysis of a sample of approximately 18 posts and over 100 unique comments reveals a public sentiment that has surpassed mere dissatisfaction and escalated towardscontemptand amoral repulsiondeep concerning the body of magistrates. Here, the dialogue about solutions is almost non-existent, drowned in a wave of accusations of betrayal and complicity in the country's plundering.

The central narrative that crystallizes on Facebook is that of"toxic substance"A written pact between the political class and the judicial system. Posts like those of Jacquelline Craciunescu or Laurent Philip clearly articulate this theory: politicians have "bought" the silence and complicity of magistrates by granting them absurd privileges – enormous pensions, scandalous retirement ages – and in return, magistrates have ensured the impunity of politicians, allowing major corruption cases to die due to statute of limitations.

Thus, the current protest is not seen as a struggle for independence, but rather as a panic reaction from a caste whose profitable pact is about to be annulled.

CaseNordisAs mentioned in Stefăniță Radu's post, this becomes an emblematic case study, the "evidence" that confirms the general suspicion. The lifting of a €90 million seizure is perceived not as a procedural decision, but as a direct act of complicity with criminals, to the detriment of hundreds of ordinary victims. The following comments are a torrent of anger: "How much money did he take from the €90 million?", "They are accomplices of the criminals", "Mafia justice".

Another recurring theme that illustrates the perceived moral chasm is the analogy with other professions, especially that of a doctor. Stefan Cristea's viral post, shared by many users, is a devastating rhetorical piece.

In the hypothetical scenario of a surgeon halting a magistrate's brain surgery to protest, a stark contrast is created between a profession viewed as dedicated to life and subject to sacrifice (medicine) and one now perceived as arrogant, selfish, and completely disconnected from any social responsibility.

Munteanu Maria Aura's ironic comment – "Zero empathy!! These people save up so much money until they're 47!! When do you expect them to spend it... At 67, when they have no hair, no teeth, and no collagen in their joints??" – perfectly captures the essence of popular sarcasm.

The trust in the integrity of the system is practically annihilated. The argument that "there are honest magistrates" is vehemently rejected. Commentators furiously reverse the proportions, claiming that, in fact, "10% do their duty and 90% do not." The language used is often brutal and dehumanizing: magistrates are referred to as "the cancer of society," "scoundrels without borders," "mafiosos in robes."

On the other hand, voices from within the system, like that of Raluca Andreea, express a sense of siege and existential fatigue. Her post, "Justice is dead," is a sarcastic cry of surrender in the face of an audience she considers ignorant and manipulated by "TV justice."

They feel wronged, cornered, and turned into scapegoats for all the ills in society. However, this perspective finds almost no resonance outside their own bubble, with dialogue being completely blocked.

The solutions proposed on Facebook are, consequently, radical and punitive. There is no longer talk of reform, but rather of a "reset from scratch." Dan Dumitru's post, urging politicians to dismiss all 7,000 judges and replace them with lawyers, although unrealistic, reflects the public's desire to completely dismantle the current structure. The prevailing sentiment is that the system is too corrupt to be repaired; it must be destroyed and rebuilt.

Conclusions and Recommendations: The Path to a Social Armistice

The analysis of public discourse reveals a fundamental and concerning conclusion: the current conflict has far exceeded the stakes of a mere legislative package. We are facing a profound crisis of legitimacy, fueled by a complete breakdown of trust between society and the judicial system. The public is radicalized in a sentiment of anger and betrayal, while the judiciary is radicalized in a defensive, besieged posture.

In this context, purely technical or punitive solutions are doomed to fail. A simple cut in pensions will not restore public trust, but risks further demotivating an already overloaded system. Similarly, maintaining the status quo is impossible, as it ignores a legitimate and profound public discontent. The way forward is one of strategic compromise and the reconstruction of the social contract between justice and citizens.

Recommendations for the Superior Council of Magistracy and the Body of Magistrates:

The main mission of the CSM should be to transform its public perception from a defender of privileges into a true guarantor of citizens' rights.

1. Operation Transparency: Transitioning from Reaction to Proactivity.
   • Empathetic Communication:CSM must create a professional communication cell that explains to the public, in simple and direct language, the role and challenges of the judiciary. The narrative must shift radically from "we defend our status" to "we defend your rights, and for that, we need guarantees." The constraints, workload, and pressure they face must be explained using concrete data and case studies.
   • Publication of Performance and Sanctions:To combat the perception of an intangible "caste," the CSM must publish simplified performance reports for the courts and, crucially, actively and transparently communicate the disciplinary sanctions imposed on judges. The public needs to see that the system has the capacity to self-regulate and cleanse itself.
2. The Equity Pact: Proposal for a Constructive Compromise.
   • Reform Offer, Not Just Opposition:Instead of merely requesting the withdrawal of the project, the CSM and professional associations should publicly present their own vision for reforming the pension system and retirement age. This should be a phased, predictable plan over a 10-15 year period, aligned with European standards, thereby demonstrating their understanding of budgetary and social realities. Such a move would change the dynamics, positioning them as responsible partners in dialogue rather than just rigid opponents.
3. Justice in the Heart of the City: Bridging the Gap to the Public.
   • Active Dialogue and Legal Education:Judges, through the CSM and courts, should engage in legal education programs in schools and periodically organize "open house days." Communication should not be limited to times of crisis. Drafting accessible summaries of rulings of significant public interest would help eliminate the perception that justice is an esoteric and incomprehensible field.

Recommendations for the Government and Parliament:

The role of the executive and legislative powers is to act as a responsible mediator, not as an instigator, channeling public discontent towards constructive solutions rather than the destruction of state authority.

1. Ending the Siege: Changing Political Rhetoric.
   • From Populism to Responsibility:Political leaders must stop using the justice system as a scapegoat for the country's economic problems. The discourse should shift from "cutting outrageous privileges" to "building a fair and sustainable pension system for all, including magistrates." De-escalating the rhetoric is essential to create a conducive climate for dialogue.
2. Reform through Partnership, Not by Decree.
   • Establishing an Extended Working Group:Any major reform of the justice system must result from a formal working group that includes, in addition to politicians, representatives from the CSM, associations of magistrates, bar associations, the academic community, and civil society. Only a co-constructed law stands a chance of being sustainable and gaining legitimacy.
3. Investment in Efficiency as Part of the Commitment.
   • Integrated Reform Package:The legislative package should not be limited to cuts. As part of the compromise, the Government must allocate substantial funds and legislate to address the fundamental issues raised by the public and judges: the genuine digitization of courts, simplification of procedures for minor disputes (as discussed on Reddit), and encouragement of mediation. If you ask judges to give up benefits, you must provide them with the tools to be more efficient in return.

Without a concerted effort from both sides, the current situation can only lead to a scenario where everyone loses: a weakened, demotivated justice system vulnerable to corruption, and an increasingly frustrated and cynical society with its trust in the rule of law annihilated. There is an urgent need for a social truce that allows for the slow and difficult process of rebuilding trust to begin. Without this truce, the only winner will be anarchy, and the only loser will be the rule of law.