Oswaldo Reynaldo Laos Mendoza
DOI: https: //doi.org/10.59427/rcli/2024/v24cs.2191-2198
To analyze how the civil liability of judges affects judicial malpractice in Peru. A positivist paradigm with a quantitative approach was adopted, being an applied and explanatory level study, with a population and sample composed of 40 lawyers. Eighty-five percent of those surveyed “totally agree” with the civil liability of judges, reflecting a strong agreement with this idea. In addition, 65% acknowledge the existence of judicial malpractice, although 28% are undecided. With a significance value of 0.000, the null hypothesis is rejected, accepting that civil liability significantly influences judicial malpractice in Peru. The Nagelkerke coefficient of 0.793 indicates that approximately 79.3% of the variability in malpractice can be explained by the variables in the model, suggesting an excellent fit. These findings underscore the importance of considering civil liability in the judicial context to improve the quality of decisions. The study shows that 85% of respondents support civil liability of judges, considering it essential to address judicial malpractice and emphasizing the need for ongoing training.
Pág 2191, 2198 30 Oct
