scholarly journals Quantitative Legal History

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Klerman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Legal History ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Legal Change ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Multiple Factors ◽  
Missed Opportunity

Quantitative legal history is in a rather sorry state. Only about a quarter of recent works of legal history use even simple quantitative methods (such as tables or graphs), and articles or books with more sophisticated methods, such as regression analysis, are extremely rare. The infrequent use of quantitative techniques is also a missed opportunity. Scholars from other fields, including economics, sociology, and political science, are using statistics to analyse legal history. Such analysis is particularly helpful in understanding the effect of legal change and in analysing the influence of multiple factors on legislation, judicial decision-making, and citizen behaviour. This chapter first assesses quantitatively the use of quantitative methods in legal history. It then discusses a few examples of the successful use of numbers and statistics in recent books addressing legal historical topics. Finally, it looks to the future of quantitative legal history.

Editor's Introduction

1985 ◽  
Vol 18 (03) ◽  
pp. 536-543
Author(s):  
Bernard Grofman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Important Case ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Policy Arena

This minisymposium brings together excerpts from the expert witness declarations of four political scientists in an important case challenging California's congressional reapportionment as an unconstitutional political gerrymander,Badham v. Eu(D.C. California, 1984). These declarations are merely the “opening gun” inBadham. If the case goes to trial, we can anticipate additional statistical analyses will be performed and, of course, each of these experts would be subject to cross-examination about his testimony. Nonetheless, these four declarations represent an excellent illustration of the potential for political science (and political scientists) to be helpful to (even if not determinative of) judicial decision-making in an important policy arena.The basic issues raised byBadhamare as follows:What is a gerrymander? Are there manageable standards through which political gerrymandering can be detected and measured? Is there (prima facie) evidence giving rise to a (rebuttable) presumption that the California congressional plans in 1981 and 1983 were political gerrymandering? Ought political gerrymandering to be justiciable? If so, did the degree of political manipulation in the California congressional plan(s) rise to the level of constitutional violation? If political gerrymandering is held justiciable, on whom should the burden of proof of gerrymandering rest?

scholarly journals “You Know Baseball? 3 Strikes”: Understanding Racial Disparity with Mixed Methods for Probation Review Hearings

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 235
Author(s):  
Danielle M. Romain Romain Dagenhardt
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Drug Use ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Participant Observation ◽  
Contextual Information ◽  
Family Status ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making

Prior literature on judicial decision-making post-sentencing is relatively scarce, yet with the growth of problem-solving courts and offenders placed on probation, judges are responsible for overseeing compliance of offenders beyond traditional decision-making points. More recently, scholars have called for more nuanced methods of examining judicial decision-making, disparity, and attribution than traditional quantitative methods. This study examines the factors that influence judicial sanctioning of probationers for non-compliance in a domestic violence court. The following research questions are examined: Which factors predict whether a probationer is sanctioned for non-compliance? What are the discourses utilized to frame these violations? Are there differences in discourses utilized based upon a probationer’s race? This study combines participant observation of probation review hearings with agency records for a mixed-methods examination of which factors influence the decision to sanction non-compliant probationers, and whether differences emerge based on race. The sample included 350 cases of probation review hearings with 100 cases selected for critical discourse analysis. Results demonstrated that drug use, missed treatment sessions, gender, race, and family status influenced sanctioning decisions. Qualitative results demonstrated that judges evaluate probationers based upon contextual information, which at times relies on racial discourses of drug use and responsibility.

Context Effects in Judicial Decision Making

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey J. Rachlinski ◽  
Chris Guthrie ◽  
Andrew J. Wistrich
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Context Effects ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making

scholarly journals Interpreting change through legal culture: the case of the Irish exclusionary rule

Legal Studies ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Claire Hamilton
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Culture ◽  
Macro Level ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Common ◽  
Law Of Evidence

Abstract The changes to the Irish exclusionary rule introduced by the judgment in People (DPP) v JC mark an important watershed in the Irish law of evidence and Irish legal culture more generally. The case relaxed the exclusionary rule established in People (DPP) v Kenny, one of the strictest in the common law world, by creating an exception based on ‘inadvertence’. This paper examines the decision through the lens of legal culture, drawing in particular on Lawrence Friedman's distinction between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ legal culture to help understand the factors contributing to the decision. The paper argues that Friedman's concept and, in particular, the dialectic between internal and external legal culture, holds much utility at a micro as well as macro level, in interrogating the cultural logics at work in judicial decision-making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document