In the Netherlands, approximately 40% of the judiciary come into post through a six-year on-the-job training programme for candidate judicial officers. This programme can be described as a socialization process. Interviews with candidates who have either opted out of the training programme, or who have been expelled, reveal that there are several mechanisms of social control. Among them there is the unique ‘floating’ position and role of the candidate within the judicial organisation, the complex relation between the trainee and his supervisor, a perception of having no say and a tendency towards depersonalisation. As a result, the trainees find themselves under considerable pressure to conform to the cultural and behavioural norms that prevail within the judiciary, or, alternatively, to leave the training programme. In this article, a detailed analysis is given of the mechanisms of social control underlying the socialization process. The levelling effects of the programme may result in the exclusion of non-average candidates at both ends of the scale. This ensures the continued existence of a judiciary whose members have moderate views and interests, whereas Dutch society may well be in need of more variation within its judiciary.

Dutch politicians sometimes express their opinion on legal cases that are sub judice. That means that they give their view on a court case where no decision has yet been taken by the judge. To find out why politicians do that, we have sent a questionnaire to members of parliament in the Netherlands. They were asked to score fifty theorems and their answers were grouped in five attitudes. Our statistical analysis shows that a lack of faith in judges leads to a desire to control the judge. Interference with the judicial process is further stimulated when politicians want to make themselves seen in the media. Politicians also appear to be more inclined to interfere when they don’t find the separation of powers that important. We found that many politicians are critical of judges, but also that most of them have a lot of confidence in the judge. Interference will remain infrequent.

Mediation is on the rise in Guatemala. In this multicultural society that has a weak rule of law there is little trust in the state law system. Informal ways of dispute settlement are popular. NGO’s, state and semi-state invest in different forms of mediation as an alternative for the legal procedure. The state links mediation to courts; NGO’s and semi-state focus on local community leaders as mediators. Characteristic of mediation is the liberty of the conflicting parties to find a solution within their own conditions, without the limits, and protection, of a legal procedure. This provides opportunities but also creates dangers. The article shows the possibilities of mediation in a society where the state isn’t a good dispute settler. It also demonstrates the dangers of mediation; consequence of the liberty is that there is not much protection of the weaker party. As the state doesn’t offer an alternative mediation becomes vulnerable to abuse of power.