scholarly journals Assessing randomness in case assignment: the case study of the Brazilian Supreme Court

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 97-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Marcondes ◽  
Cláudia Peixoto ◽  
Julio Michael Stern
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Statistical Model ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Mathematical Statistics ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Legal Case ◽  
Judicial Systems

Abstract Sortition, i.e. random appointment for public duty, has been employed by societies throughout the years as a firewall designated to prevent illegitimate interference between parties in a legal case and agents of the legal system. In judicial systems of modern western countries, random procedures are mainly employed to select the jury, the court and/or the judge in charge of judging a legal case. Therefore, these random procedures play an important role in the course of a case, and should comply with some principles, such as transparency and complete auditability. Nevertheless, these principles are neglected by random procedures in some judicial systems, which are performed in secrecy and are not auditable by the involved parties. The assignment of cases in the Brazilian Supreme Court is an example of such a procedure, for it is performed using procedures unknown to the parties involved in the judicial cases. This article presents a review of how sortition has been historically employed by societies and discusses how Mathematical Statistics may be applied to random procedures of the judicial system, as it has been applied for almost a century on clinical trials, for example. A statistical model for assessing randomness in case assignment is proposed and applied to the Brazilian Supreme Court. As final remarks, guidelines for the development of good randomization procedures are outlined.

scholarly journals SISTEM PERADILAN DI INDONESIA BERDASARKAN UUD NEGARA REPUBLIK INDONESIA TAHUN 1945

Yustitia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-62
Author(s):  
Ihat Subihat
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Library Studies ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

A country’s judicial system cannot be separated from the legal system in force in the country. In other words, a country’s justice system is a sub-system of the country’s justice system. Because the legal system that applies in Indonesia is a legal system based on the Pancasila and the 1945 constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, the judicial system in Indonesia must also be based on Pancasila values and articles in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. This study was conducted by using normative juridical method by reviewing various legal materials; primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. While the data collection method was carried out through library studies. The analysis technique used descriptive method with prescriptive approach. The result of this study showed that the four judicial environments are under the Indonesia Supreme Court; general justice, religious justice, military justice and state administrative courts, as sub-judicial systems in Indonesia, each of which has an institutional, authority and legal structure separate events that differ from one another according to the specificity and absolute competence of each that cannot be mixed up. In contrast to other judicial environments which have adjusted to the changes in the new judicial power law, the institutional structure and authority of the courts within the military court which is part of the judicial system under the Supreme court of the Republic of Indonesia is still regulated in Law Number 31 of 1997 concerning Military justice and not yet adjusted to Lay Number 14 of 2004 concerning Judicial Power, because the Amendment Draft to the Law on Military Justice which had been discussed since 2005 has not yet been agreed upon by the DPR and the Government. Even when the Lay on Military Justice cannot be adjusted to Law Number 4 of 2004, on October 29, 2009 Law Number 4 of 2004 was revoked and then replaced with Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning the latest Judicial Power.

Judging in the Buddha’s Court: A Buddhist Judicial System in Contemporary Asia

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Benjamin SCHONTHAL
Keyword(s):  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Southeast Asia ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Ethnographic Research ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Contemporary World ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
South And Southeast Asia ◽  
Judicial Systems

Abstract Drawing on textual and ethnographic research conducted over the last five years, this article analyses an important genre of judicial practice in South and Southeast Asia that has been almost entirely ignored by socio-legal scholars: Buddhist systems of judging. Using the judicial system of one monastic group in contemporary Sri Lanka as a case-study, it argues that Buddhist judging requires more than just the internalization of moral principles, as is often assumed. According to Buddhist (monastic) principles of judging, legal procedures—similar to those used in state legal settings—are equally essential. These procedures govern everything from making legal complaints, to the structuring of trials, to determining jurisdiction, and many other topics. By examining Buddhist judicial systems, this article not only casts new light on the pluri-legal landscape of Asia; it also offers new reflections on the intersection of religion-based and state-based systems of law in the contemporary world.

The Role of Traditionalists and Modernists on the Development of the Saudi Legal System

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-229
Author(s):  
Ayoub Al-Jarbou
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Education ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
Judicial Systems

This article deals with the issue of the role of traditionalists and modernists on the development of the Saudi legal system. It presents and defines the two movements and evaluates their backgrounds and approaches. It also explores their impacts on the development of the Saudi legal system through evaluating their approaches on the following areas: legislative process, people's perspective toward applied laws, the judicial system, and legal education. The article concludes that it is clear from this evidentiary demonstration that the development of the Saudi legal system has been affected by the concurrent influences of traditionalist and modernist movements. The substance of enacted laws, legal education, the judicial systems, and people's attitude toward both Shariah and enacted laws has been negatively affected by the approaches of both movements. The paper provides for various approaches and solutions that address the problems of the system of legal education, judicial system, and legislative process. The paper suggests that these various approaches and solutions have to be adopted jointly; otherwise the confusion in the legal system will continue.

Composing a judiciary: reflections on proposed reforms in the United Kingdom on how to change the voices of and the constituencies for judging

Legal Studies ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 24 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 228-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Resnik
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Culture ◽  
The United States ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Systems

I sit an ocean and a legal culture away. Asked to comment on reforms in England and Wales, my response is shaped by knowledge of the legal system of the United States, which shares aspirations similar with and has been much influenced by the judicial system of England and Wales, but is also very different from it.Yet judicial systems on both sides of the Atlantic (and in many other places) have to face difficult challenges. How can governments create, select, and equip a sufficient number of individual judges to respond to the tens of thousands of complainants who come before them?

Questions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Gibson ◽  
Michael J. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
African Americans ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Public Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
White Americans ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
The U.S

We have investigated the differences in support for the U.S. Supreme Court among black, Hispanic, and white Americans, catalogued the variation in African Americans’ group attachments and experiences with legal authorities, and examined how those latter two factors shape individuals’ support for the U.S. Supreme Court, that Court’s decisions, and for their local legal system. We take this opportunity to weave our findings together, taking stock of what we have learned from our analyses and what seem like fruitful paths for future research. In the process, we revisit Positivity Theory. We present a modified version of the theory that we hope will guide future inquiry on public support for courts, both in the United States and abroad.

Text trajectories, legal discourse and gendered inequalities

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Ehrlich,
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Conversation Analysis ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Salient Feature ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Legal Institution ◽  
Legal Case ◽  
Fertile Ground ◽  
Rape Trial

AbstractFollowing Blommaert (2005), this paper examines what he calls a ‘forgotten’ context within Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Conversation Analysis (CA) – that of text trajectories. For Blommaert, a limitation of both CDA and CA is their focus on “the unique, one-time” instance of a given text and, by extension, the (limited) context associated with such an instance of text. Such a focus, according to Blommaert, ignores a salient feature of communication in contemporary societies – the fact that texts and discourses move around, are repeatedly recontextualized in new interpretive spaces, and in the process undergo significant transformations in meaning. The text trajectory investigated in this paper begins in a legal institution, more specifically, with a 2004 American rape trial, Maouloud Baby v. the State of Maryland. This legal case garnered much media attention and, as a result of such exposure, references to the case have appeared in both mainstream and social media outlets. Hence, as a ‘text’ that has displayed considerable movement across different contexts within the legal system and, subsequently, beyond the legal system to mainstream and popular forms of media, the Maouloud Baby trial constitutes fertile ground for the exploration of a text's trajectory. Indeed, in keeping with Blommaert's claims, I show how this trial's ‘text’ undergoes significant transformations in meaning as it is recontextualized in different kinds of interpretive spaces (both within the legal system and outside of it) and how these transformations in meaning reproduce larger patterns of gendered inequalities.

scholarly journals Deservingness in Judicial Discourse. An Analysis of the Legal Reasoning Adopted in Dutch Case Law on Irregular Migrant Families’ Access to Shelter

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Lieneke Slingenberg
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Migrant Families ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Discourse ◽  
Major Shift ◽  
New Interpretation ◽  
Irregular Migrant ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In September 2012, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld a judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal that the eviction from basic shelter of a mother and her minor children, who did not have legal residence in the Netherlands, was unlawful. This ruling was instigated by a radically new interpretation of the European Social Charter’s personal scope and caused a major shift in Dutch policy. This article provides a case study into the legal reasoning adopted by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It argues that, instead of relying on legal doctrinal reasoning for justifying the outcome, both courts referred to factors that the general public relies on to assess people’s deservingness of welfare. This finding raises fundamental questions about the relationship between human rights law and deservingness; and calls, therefore, for further research into the relevance of deservingness criteria in judicial discourse.

scholarly journals Immunizing the Flock: How the Pandemic Court Rewrote Religious Freedom

Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 12
Author(s):  
Paul Baumgardner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religious Practices ◽  
The Past ◽  
The U.S

When coronavirus began to descend upon the United States, religious freedom advocates across the country sounded the alarm that citizens’ religious practices and institutions were under threat. Although some of the most extreme arguments championed by these advocates were not validated by our legal system, many were. This article explores the underappreciated gains made by religious freedom advocates before the U.S. Supreme Court over the past year. As a result of the “Pandemic Court”, religious freedom in the United States has been rewritten. This promises to radically change the educational, employment, and health prospects of millions of Americans for the rest of the pandemic and long afterwards.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document