This theme should be mainly approached from a sociological viewpoint, which could identify the causes that have led to the current circumstances in which the judiciary power has a relatively low level of credibility.
The legal aspects that have caused this perception of justice should also be studied. Formally, within judiciary procedures, the existence of parties with conflicting interests - plaintiff/defender, perpetrator/victim – may explain the fact that the one who loses a legal battle due to a judge’s decision is likely to blame the act of justice itself. Yet, there are also some negative perceptions, starting from the manner in which justice is perceived in the courtroom – the litigants’ level of legal culture (with numerous cases in which the parties do not understand the judiciary procedures, the rules that the judge is compelled to apply, and thus believe to have been wronged by particular resolutions or procedures), to burdensome and lengthy procedures, the defective management of hearings, the manner in which the act of justice is approached in public, including by politicians, the existence and the frequency of acts of corruption linked to the act of justice.
Approaching the reform of justice through measures that are not substantiated by a serious analysis of the causes leading to the diminishing quality of justice or to the low level of confidence in justice may have an effect contrary to that pursued by lawmakers; some examples of “reforming” bills that have recently been put into practice (especially those that changed the competence of courts, which were later amended because they quasi-blocked the judiciary system) are solid arguments in this respect.