The fabricated scandal over magistrates’ exams

Let us brace ourselves for the conditioned reflex: psycho-aptitude tests for magistrates will be portrayed today as further evidence of the political establishment’s relentless campaign against the judiciary, and as an attempt to scrutinise those who should merely be administering justice. But the resolution approved yesterday by the plenary session of the CSM, with six abstentions, tells a more complicated story. The 2024 decree introduced these tests solely for entry into the judiciary, not during one’s career, entrusting the CSM itself with their development in accordance with international psychometric standards. Let us start with a simple fact. Tests of this kind are not a ‘humiliation’ invented for magistrates: psycho-aptitude assessments are already required for those joining the police, the armed forces, the fire service and other public sector recruitment processes. The point, therefore, is not to ask why on earth a magistrate might be subjected to an assessment that many other public servants are already required to undergo. The real issue is understanding what that assessment will measure.

And this is where the story gets interesting. When the government introduced the tests, Minister Carlo Nordio explained that the aim was to identify any potential mental health or personality disorders. The CSM, after hearing from nineteen experts, ruled out personality tests, deeming them to have poor predictive value, and shifted its focus to cognitive abilities, reasoning, problem-solving and adaptation to new situations. The resolution approved yesterday adds emotional, relational, ethical-value and organisational aspects to the areas to be assessed. There is therefore much room for debate regarding the appropriateness of the tests. But before crying foul over a lack of legitimacy, it is worth noting the paradox: the real issue is not that magistrates are being subjected to some sort of invasive psychological examination. It is almost the opposite. The risk to be assessed following yesterday’s decision by the High Council of the Judiciary is therefore not that of having a test that is too aggressive. It is the opposite. It is the risk of having a test so cautious that it becomes harmless. And therefore, perhaps, useless.