Simulated judicial decision‐making for African and European American adolescents with illegal sexual behavior: The impact of medical data and victim race/ethnicity

2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-65
Author(s):  
Rebecca L. Fix ◽  
John Michael Falligant ◽  
Apryl A. Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sexual Behavior ◽  
Medical Data ◽  
European American ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
The Impact

Mimoprávní vlivy na rozhodování českého Ústavního soudu

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hubert Smekal ◽  
Jaroslav Benák ◽  
Monika Hanych ◽  
Ladislav Vyhnánek ◽  
Štěpán Janků
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
Strategic Decision Making ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Media ◽  
Book Studies ◽  
The Impact

The book studies other than purely legal factors that influence the Czech Constitutional Court judges in their decision-making. The publication is inspired by foreign models of judicial decision-making and discusses their applicability in the Czech environment. More specifically, it focuses, for example, on the influence of the judge’s personality, collegiality, strategic decision-making or the impact of public opinion and the media. The book is based mainly on interviews with current constitutional judges.

scholarly journals The Value of Behavioral Economics for EU Judicial Decision-Making

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-264
Author(s):  
Christoph K. Winter
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Hindsight Bias ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Behavioral Economic ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Cognitive Illusions ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThis Article analyzes the value of behavioral economics for EU judicial decision-making. The first part introduces the foundations of behavioral economics by focusing on cognitive illusions, prospect theory, and the underlying distinction between different processes of thought. The second part examines the influence of selected biases and heuristics, namely the anchoring effect, availability bias, zero-risk bias, and hindsight bias on diverse legal issues in EU law including, among others, the scope of the fundamental freedoms, the proportionality test as well as the roles of the Advocate General and Reporting Judge. The Article outlines how behavioral economic findings can be taken into account to improve judicial decision-making. Accordingly, the adaptation of judicial training concerning cognitive illusions, the establishment of a de minimis rule regarding the scope of the fundamental freedoms, and the use of economic models when determining the impact of certain measures on fundamental freedoms is suggested. Finally, an “unbiased jury” concentrating exclusively on specific factual issues such as causal connections within the proportionality test is necessary, if the hindsight bias is to be avoided. While it is of great importance to take behavioral economic findings into account, judicial decision-making is unlikely to become flawless based on natural intelligence. Despite bearing fundamental risks, artificial intelligence may provide means to achieve greater fairness, consistency, and legal certainty in the future.

Judicial Decision-Making and Deliberations

2021 ◽  
pp. 143-163
Author(s):  
Theodor Meron
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Diverse Backgrounds ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
The Impact

This chapter assesses judicial decision-making and deliberations. The success of international criminal courts depends in no small part on the transparency of proceedings and reasoning of the judgements. Transparency is essential to building public confidence in the fair administration of justice. It also serves as an important safeguard against judicial arbitrariness and helps to ensure not only the fairness of the proceedings but the independence and impartiality of the Bench. This commitment to transparency in court proceedings is not absolute, however. It is limited by other factors, such as the importance of protecting witnesses and victims and the requirement that certain information be kept confidential. The chapter looks at the process of decision-making in the ICTY, ICTR, and the Mechanism. It draws attention to four specific issues: the uniqueness of the tribunals and the impact of their special status on decision-making; the diversity of decision-makers at the tribunals; the diverse backgrounds of the tribunals’ Judges and staff; and the process of decision-making.

Commitment and Cooperation on High Courts

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Alarie ◽  
Andrew J. Green
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
The United States ◽  
Empirical Literature ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Institutional Differences ◽  
The Impact

Judicial decision-making is ideally impartial. In reality, judges are influenced by many different factors, including institutional context, ideological commitment, fellow justices on a panel, and personal preferences. Empirical literature in this area increasingly analyzes this complex collection of factors in isolation, when a larger sample size of comparative institutional contexts can help assess the impact of the procedures, norms, and rules on key institutional decisions, such as how appeals are decided. This book explains how the answers to the following institutional questions largely determine the influence of political preferences of individual judges and the degree of cooperation among judges at a given point in time. Who decides how judicial appointments are made? How does an appeal reach the court; what processes occur? Who is before the court; how do the characteristics of the litigants and third parties affect judicial decision-making? How does the court decide the appeal; what institutional norms and strategic behaviors do the judges follow in obtaining their preferred outcome? The authors apply these four fundamental institutional questions to empirical work on the supreme courts of the United States, UK, Canada, India, and the High Court of Australia. The ultimate purpose of this book is to promote a deeper understanding of how institutional differences affect judicial decision-making, using empirical studies of supreme courts in countries with similar basic structures but with sufficient differences to enable meaningful comparison.

scholarly journals Decisión judicial y participación ciudadana: los impactos de las audiencias públicas en las sentencias de la Corte Suprema argentina = Judicial decision making and public participation: the impact of public hearings in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Argentina

2018 ◽  
pp. 102
Author(s):  
Miguel Á. Benedetti ◽  
M. Jimena Sáenz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Public Hearings ◽  
The Impact

Resumen: En las últimas décadas, las audiencias públicas realizadas en foros judiciales han sido señaladas como una de las innovaciones más importantes en las prácticas de los tribunales de altas instancias latinoamericanos. Estas audiencias prometen una renovación en los modos de pensar las tensas relaciones entre el poder judicial –especialmente su facultad de revisión de constitucionalidad– y la democracia a partir de la apertura del espacio judicial al diálogo y la participación de la ciudadanía, de las modalidades de intervención judicial para la protección de derechos, y de los aspectos simbólicos y políticos de herramientas que usualmente se reconocen como meramente procesales. A la luz de esos objetivos de renovación dialógica, pragmática y simbólica de las prácticas judiciales que abrieron las audiencias, este trabajo testea su grado de concreción a través de un estudio de los efectos de las audiencias públicas realizadas por la Corte Suprema de Justicia argentina en sus decisiones desde finales de 2004 hasta el 2017 inclusive.Palabras clave: Corte Suprema, audiencias públicas, participación ciudadana, deliberación, decisión judicialAbstract: The implementation of public hearings in judicial fora in the last decades has been considered from different perspectives one of the most important innovations in the practices of Latin American Courts. They promise a renovation in the ways of accommodating the tension between the role of Courts (especially their function of judicial review) and democracy; in the models of judicial decision making, and they point to the symbolic dimension of procedural rules and practices. This paper presents a study that tests the accomplishment of these promises tracing the impact of public hearings in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Argentina in the period between 2004 and 2017.Keywords: Supreme Court, public hearings, public participation, deliberation, judicial decision making.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document