scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers on "Judicial opinion published in 2015"


Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2015
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present an overview of the sources of international law and the normative origins and sources of those rights, obligations, and liabilities, which is the focus of this chapter.
Abstract: Any scholarly work on international law would be incomplete without an overview of the sources of this important body of law regulating the conduct of states and other subjects of international law In effect, to understand the rights, obligations, and liabilities of international entities, knowledge of the normative origins and sources of those rights, obligations, and liabilities is imperative This is the focus of this chapter

72 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
23 Feb 2015-Memory
TL;DR: A brief historical overview of false memories is presented that focuses on three critical forensic areas that changed memory research: children as eyewitnesses, historic sexual abuse and eyewitness (mis)identification.
Abstract: The capability of adult and child witnesses to accurately recollect events from the past and provide reliable testimony has been hotly debated for more than 100 years. Prominent legal cases of the 1980s and 1990s sparked lengthy debates and important research questions surrounding the fallibility and general reliability of memory. But what lessons have we learned, some 35 years later, about the role of memory in the judicial system? In this review, we focus on what we now know about the consequences of the fallibility of memory for legal proceedings. We present a brief historical overview of false memories that focuses on three critical forensic areas that changed memory research: children as eyewitnesses, historic sexual abuse and eyewitness (mis)identification. We revisit some of the prominent trials of the 1980s and 1990s to not only consider the role false memories have played in judicial decisions, but also to see how this has helped us understand memory today. Finally, we consider the way in which the research on memory (true and false) has been successfully integrated into some courtroom procedures.

67 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article found that at a statistically significant level, law professors at elite law schools who make donations to Democratic political candidates write liberal scholarship, and law professors who make donation to Republican political candidates wrote conservative scholarship.
Abstract: Law professors routinely accuse each other of making politically biased arguments in their scholarship. They have also helped produce a large empirical literature on judicial behavior that has found that judicial opinions sometimes reflect the ideological biases of the judges who join them. Yet no one has used statistical methods to test the parallel hypothesis that legal scholarship reflects the political biases of law professors. This paper provides the results of such a test. We find that, at a statistically significant level, law professors at elite law schools who make donations to Democratic political candidates write liberal scholarship, and law professors who make donations to Republican political candidates write conservative scholarship. These findings raise questions about standards of objectivity in legal scholarship.

66 citations


Posted Content
TL;DR: The authors presented a model of judicial decision making in which the judge overweights the salient facts of the case and the context of the judicial decision, which is comparative by nature, shapes which aspects of a case stand out and draw the judge’s attention.
Abstract: We present a model of judicial decision making in which the judge overweights the salient facts of the case. The context of the judicial decision, which is comparative by nature, shapes which aspects of the case stand out and draw the judge’s attention. By focusing judicial attention on such salient aspects of the case, legally irrelevant information can affect judicial decisions. Our model accounts for a range of recent experimental evidence that bears on the psychology of judicial decisions, including anchoring effects in the setting of damages, decoy effects in choice of legal remedies, and framing effects in the decision to litigate. The model also offers a new approach to positive analysis of damage awards in torts.

61 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper analyzed the effects of judicial deference in federal employment discrimination cases and found that when judges uncritically use the presence of organizational structures to reason about whether discrimination occurred, employers are much more likely to prevail.
Abstract: © 2015 American Bar Foundation.. This article provides a new account of employers' advantages over employees in federal employment discrimination cases. We analyze the effects of judicial deference, in which judges use institutionalized employment structures to infer nondiscrimination without scrutinizing those structures in any meaningful way. Using logistic regression to analyze a representative sample of judicial opinions in federal EEO cases during the first thirty-five years after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, we find that when judges uncritically use the presence of organizational structures to reason about whether discrimination occurred, employers are much more likely to prevail. This pattern is especially pronounced in opinions written by liberal judges. In light of these findings, we offer recommendations for judges, lawyers, and policy makers-including legal academics-who seek to improve the accuracy and efficacy of employment discrimination adjudications.

52 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a model of judicial decision making in which the judge overweights the salient facts of the case and the context of the judicial decision, which is comparative by nature, shapes which aspects of a case stand out and draw the judge's attention.
Abstract: We present a model of judicial decision making in which the judge overweights the salient facts of the case. The context of the judicial decision, which is comparative by nature, shapes which aspects of the case stand out and draw the judge’s attention. By focusing judicial attention on such salient aspects of the case, legally irrelevant information can affect judicial decisions. Our model accounts for a range of recent experimental evidence that bears on the psychology of judicial decisions, including anchoring effects in the setting of damages, decoy effects in choice of legal remedies, and framing effects in the decision to litigate. The model also offers a new approach to positive analysis of damage awards in torts.

47 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the effect of judicial transparency on trust in Dutch television series has been investigated and it has been shown that judicial transparency has a positive effect on trust and that it has the strongest effect on individuals with medium prior knowledge about the judiciary.
Abstract: Trust in judges is needed for voluntary acceptance of judicial decisions, and judicial transparency is thought to strengthen trust. It exposes the public to symbols that embrace a 'myth of legality' which is expected to have a positive effect on trust. We assess a specific understanding of transparency and trust by looking at the moderating effect of knowledge and predisposition to trust. We report on a field experiment which investigates the effect of a Dutch television series on trust. Findings show that judicial transparency indeed has a positive effect on trust. Moreover, our analysis demonstrates that it has the strongest effects on individuals with medium prior knowledge about the judiciary. However, higher predisposition to trust mitigated the effect of transparency, indicating a ceiling effect. This sustains the idea that the unique traits of visual judicial transparency expose typical judicial symbols that imply that impartiality which increases trust in judges.

47 citations


Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, a taxonomy of judicial influence is constructed, and expectations of institutional and political conditions on judicial influence are presented, and the analysis draws on an extensive novel dataset and examines judicial influence on EU social policies over time, as well as for case studies of working time regulations and patients' rights.
Abstract: The ability of courts to generate political change has long been debated in national, comparative and international politics. In the examination of the interaction between judicial and legislative politics, scholars have disagreed on the degree of judicial power and the ability of politics to override unwanted jurisprudence. In this debate, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has become famous for its central and occasionally controversial role in European integration. This paper examines to what extent and under which conditions judicial decisions influence European Union (EU) social policy outputs. A taxonomy of judicial influence is constructed, and expectations of institutional and political conditions on judicial influence are presented. The analysis draws on an extensive novel dataset and examines judicial influence on EU social policies over time, i.e., between 1958 and 2014, as well as for case studies of working time regulations and patients’ rights. The findings demonstrate that both the codification and overriding of judicial decisions are unlikely in the contemporary EU-28 of fragmented politics. However, modification and non-adoption constitute other political responses to attenuate unwelcome jurisprudence and constrain the legislative effect of judicial decisions.

44 citations


Posted Content
Linna Martén1
TL;DR: In this paper, a system where laymen, who lack legal education, participate in the judicial decision-making is described, and little is known about their potential influence on the court rulings.
Abstract: Several countries practice a system where laymen, who lack legal education, participate in the judicial decision making. Yet, little is known about their potential influence on the court rulings. I ...

34 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors used a multi-wave panel design with observations collected just hours before and after the Court's decision and found that the decision induced a general, persistent, and relatively unconditional uptick in support for the provision the Court deemed constitutional.
Abstract: Did the Supreme Court decision in the Affordable Care Act case change public opinion about health care reform? Utilizing a multi-wave panel design with observations collected just hours before and after the Court’s decision, this study addresses macro-level questions concerning the Court’s effect on opinion about health care reform generally and the individual mandate specifically. Findings show that support for health care reform remained constant despite significant positive movement on the mandate. The panel design also allows for the analysis of micro-level change and the testing of hypotheses related to cognitive models, individual attributes, and assessments of the Court’s legitimacy. Despite some evidence of micro-level variation, the data ultimately point to a decision that induced a general, persistent, and relatively unconditional uptick in support for the provision the Court deemed constitutional

29 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore the role of victims in the criminal proceedings of the International Criminal Court and the extent to which their interests have impacted upon the ICC judges' decision making in light of human rights law and victimological theorisation.
Abstract: This article explores the role of victims in the criminal proceedings of the International Criminal Court and the extent to which their interests have impacted upon the ICC judges’ decision making in light of human rights law and victimological theorisation. The article begins by first outlining how victims’ interests can be considered in international criminal proceedings, before contrasting this role with the purpose of international criminal justice. The second part of the article examines victim participation within the ICC and how this has affected judicial decision making to assess its effectiveness. The contest between the rights of victims and the role of Prosecutor in determining the selection of charges and perpetrators is also examined in an effort to add to the current debate on victim participation at the ICC. The author finds that at the ICC, despite innovative victim provisions, victims’ interests have little impact on outcomes of the Court. The author argues that in order to ensure the Court is more responsive to victims understanding of justice it should give greater weight to their interests, which in turn is likely to improve their satisfaction with the ICC, as well as public confidence and legitimacy of the work of the Court.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper found that the public's perception of the process judges use to make decisions changes the determinants of acceptance of court decisions, and that institutional loyalty and agreement with the policy implications of a decision determined acceptance.
Abstract: Since courts lack control of the purse and the sword, understanding what causes the public to accept court decisions is essential. Using three studies, this paper shows that the public’s perception of the process judges use to make decisions changes the determinants of acceptance. When judges are perceived as using a principled decision-making process, institutional loyalty determines acceptance. When judges are perceived as using a politicized decision-making process, agreement with the policy implications of a decision determines acceptance. These results emphasize the importance of decision-making process perceptions in ensuring that courts can induce voluntary acceptance of their decisions.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The court ruled that ZFN-1 and TALEs are techniques of genetic modification and thus within the New Zealand statute and regulations governing genetically modified organisms.
Abstract: In May 2014, a New Zealand court rendered the first judicial opinion in the world about the legal classification of gene-editing techniques. The court ruled that ZFN-1 and TALEs are techniques of genetic modification and thus within the New Zealand statute and regulations governing genetically modified organisms. This article explains the facts of this legal matter, the reasoning of the court, and provides commentary about the implications of this decision for New Zealand and other jurisdictions around the world.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article developed a theoretical model suggesting that judges who are concerned about their reputation will tend to decide against their prior decisions as they approach elections and found evidence consistent with the predictions of their model using data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing.
Abstract: We seek to contribute to an understanding of how judicial elections affect the incentives and decisions of judges. We develop a theoretical model suggesting that judges who are concerned about their reputation will tend to decide against their prior decisions as they approach elections. That is, judges who imposed a large number of severe sentences in the past and are thus perceived to be strict will tend to impose less severe sentences prior to elections. Conversely, judges who imposed a large number of light sentences in the past and are thus perceived to be lenient will tend to impose more severe sentences prior to elections. Using data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, we test, and find evidence consistent with, the predictions of our model.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article developed a formal economic model of legislative-judicial interaction to predict the circumstances in which Congress will and will not change judicial decisions and showed that congressional inaction is not a sign of acceptability by a majority of legislators.
Abstract: Traditional law and economic analysis has focused on legal rules directly related to the allocation of resources. Today, economic analysis is being used to examine more traditional legal issues. This article explores one such traditional legal issue by applying economic methodology to the legislative-judicial interaction or "bargaining game." The purpose of this article is to determine the impact of judicial interpretation on regulatory legislation. Most studies of the political economy of regulation have focused on elected politicians (e.g., Congressmen), ignoring the role of the courts. Yet, judges interpret the law and may, in the extreme, reverse legislative decisions. Studying the influence of the judiciary on the legislature’s regulatory decisions remains an unexplored but important issue. The model allows us to address a variety of issues central to national policy making, for example, how the court influences legislative choices. We focus on an issue raised in the legal literature and in judicial opinions. Suppose a regulatory statute has been altered or reinterpreted by the courts, and we then observe that Congress does not act to change the court ruling. What can we infer from this lack of action? Many prominent political and legal scholars conclude that this inaction indicates acceptability by a majority of legislators. Because there exists no analytical foundation for assessing how judicial decisions affect legislative decision making over regulatory issues, however, such conclusions rest on questionable assumptions. The purpose of this article is to develop a formal economic model of legislative-judicial interaction. The model allows us to predict the circumstances in which Congress will and will not change judicial decisions. The model shows that congressional inaction is not a sign of acceptability by a majority of legislators. Instead, congressional inaction is a consequence of congressional structure and procedures: committees play an important role here, as does bicameralism. This model will be used to explore and explain the legislative events surrounding the Supreme Court decision Grove City College v. Bell (1984), a case involving statutory interpretation and the Department of Education’s regulatory provisions prohibiting sex discrimination. (JEL D72, D78, K00, K40, Z18)

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The findings show that the factors most associated with PRO outcomes, namely, the denial of a PRO, are those reflecting the licit rather than illicit behavior of the respondent.
Abstract: A modest body of research has examined judicial decision making in civil protection order (CPO) cases. A major finding of this prior research is that the factors expected to shape judicial responses to CPO requests are often found to be insignificant. Because such decisions are often rendered in an environment of vast judicial discretion and competing allegations, the question of "what matters?" assumes added importance. This study examines permanent/final restraining order (PRO) outcomes for intimate partner violence on a number of variables. Specifically, chi-square analyses were performed examining the associations between granting/denying a PRO and demographic, relationship, hearing, and allegation characteristics associated with the petitioner and respondent. These tests helped to reveal relationships at the bivariate level and aided in further model-building using logistic regression and decision-tree analysis. The findings show that the factors most associated with PRO outcomes, namely, the denial of a PRO, are those reflecting the licit rather than illicit behavior of the respondent.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine how the design of executive and judicial institutions affect judicial decision making in cases involving challenges to executive power in the U.S. context and find that courts are more likely to uphold executive power when the threat of institutional retaliation from the executive is high.
Abstract: Judicial intervention is often required to define the boundaries of executive power. Although many separation of powers analyses examine the interaction of courts and legislatures, few examine how the design of executive and judicial institutions affect judicial decision making in cases involving challenges to executive power in the U.S. context. I argue that the degree of judicial institutional vulnerability to executive retaliation will have a significant impact on judicial making. Using an original dataset of cases involving executive power challenges in the American states between 1980 and 2010, I find that courts are more likely to uphold executive power in environments where the threat of institutional retaliation from the executive is high. The results of this analysis indicate that the strength of judicial checks against executive power depends on broader relations of institutional authority, not just on constitutional doctrine or culture.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article investigated the influence of subject matter expertise, opinion specialization, and judicial experience on the role of ideology in decision making in the courts of appeals in a generalized, as opposed to specialized, setting.
Abstract: We investigate the influence of subject matter expertise, opinion specialization, and judicial experience on the role of ideology in decision making in the courts of appeals in a generalized, as opposed to specialized, setting. We find that subject matter experts and opinion specialists are significantly more likely to engage in ideological decision making than their nonspecialist counterparts and that opinion specialization is a particularly potent factor in ideological decision making. Further, increased judicial experience has no effect on the conditional use of ideology. We discuss the potentially wide-ranging implications of our findings for both theory and policy.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authorship of opinions has been used to detect the power of opinion authors over opinion content, which is compatible with the author influence class of bargaining models, with particular support for one model within this class.
Abstract: How can we assess relative bargaining power within the Supreme Court? Justices cast two votes in every case, one during the initial conference and one on the final merits of the case. Between these two votes, a justice is assigned to draft the majority opinion. We argue that vote switching can be used to detect the power of opinion authors over opinion content. Bargaining models make different predictions for opinion content and therefore for when other justices in the initial majority should be more or less likely to defect from initial positions. We derive hypotheses for how opinion authorship should affect vote switching and find that authorship has striking effects on switching. Authors thus have disproportionate influence and by extension so do chief justices, who make most assignments. This evidence is compatible with only the “author influence” class of bargaining models, with particular support for one model within this class.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: How two aspects of private law Children Act proceedings diminished women's safety were highlighted: the absence of special facilities in family courts and gaps in legal representation for both victim-survivors and perpetrators.
Abstract: Domestic violence is the most common welfare issue raised in private law contact proceedings. A wide range of studies has shown that judicial decisions about contact which fail to take safety into ...

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper examined what factors determine opinion writing behavior among district court judges and found that legal, hierarchical, and institutional features are critical in motivating opinion writing and opinion length and that personal factors have very limited effects.
Abstract: American trial court judges’ roles and behavior vary greatly from their appellate court brethren. One such area of difference has to do with opinion writing behavior, an area where trial judges hold a great deal of discretion in determining whether to write an opinion and, if they do, how long the opinion should be. To examine what factors determine opinion writing behavior among district court judges, this study relies on analyses of an original dataset of civil cases that terminated in eighteen federal district courts from 2000 to 2006. The results indicate that legal, hierarchical, and institutional features are critical in motivating opinion writing and opinion length and that personal factors have very limited effects. The fruits of this exercise have important implications for how we view and model the behavior of trial court judges in the future.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that judicial systems that limit policy-making authority also discourage the politicization of courts, encouraging judges to think narrowly about the interests of litigating parties.
Abstract: How does a court’s policy-making authority shape the nature of judicial behavior? We argue that judicial systems that limit policy-making authority also discourage the politicization of courts, encouraging judges to think narrowly about the interests of litigating parties. In contrast, granting a court high policy-making authority—affecting potentially thousands of cases and other branches of government—naturally encourages judges to consider broader ideological principles. Typically, unraveling cause and effect would be difficult, as judicial behavior and institutions are usually stable and endogenous. But an especially stark sequence of political and institutional changes in Brazil affords analytic leverage to explore these questions. A series of judicial reforms greatly expanded the Brazilian Supreme Court’s authority, and our analysis of judicial decisions shows the emergence of a political cleavage on the court after these reforms.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Acemoglu et al. as mentioned in this paper used a panel dataset from 1984 to 2007 for 127 countries and both fixed effect and dynamic GMM methodologies to examine whether democracy promotes the rule of law.
Abstract: Recent studies find that democracy increases economic growth but often do not address through what channels such an effect could travel. This study considers whether or not democracy strengthens the rule of law, an institutional measure purported to increase economic growth. Utilizing a panel dataset from 1984 to 2007 for 127 countries and both fixed effect and dynamic GMM methodologies, we examine whether democracy promotes the rule of law. We generally find a short run positive influence upon the rule of law although effects are greatest for low income countries.Keywords: Democratization, Institutions, Rule of Law, Economic GrowthJEL classification: O40, O50, O55(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.)1. INTRODUCTIONMany studies point to the importance of institutions for economic growth, including Acemoglu et al. (2001), Hall and Jones (1999), Engermann and Sokoloff (1997), and Dollar and Kraay (2003).1 Acemoglu et al. (2005) and Acemoglu (2010) provide surveys of this literature. North (1990) defines institutions as "the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction." He asserts that institutions that secure property rights promote economic development. One specific component of institutions that has received attention is adherence to the rule of law. By "rule of law" we mean a judicial regime in which no one is above the law and everyone is equal before the law (Dicey, 1889). People abide by judicial decisions and people's day-to-day actions are generally lawful in that they do not conflict with legal codes. One reason to focus on the rule of law is its importance in protecting property and promoting productive activities. Rodrik et al. (2004) state that in principle the rule of law captures more elements describing institutional quality than do other measures.Given this presumed importance, a question then arises as to why the rule of law is more prevalent in some countries than in others. Some have examined the effects of long-run historical factors such as the degree of European influence or geographic factors. These factors determine the type of institutions which then affect long-run income levels. Hall and Jones (1999) and Acemoglu et al. (2001) provide examples. We examine a more contemporaneous factor. Specifically, we consider whether democracy promotes the rule of law and so whether democratization could then improve the rule of law.2 Using panel data estimation methodologies, recent studies show that democracy raises economic growth.3 Our study explores whether promoting the rule of law could be a channel that explains these findings.Barro (1996) considered a similar issue. He found that although greater maintenance of the rule of law is favorable to economic growth, he found little evidence that democracy promotes the rule of law. Our study differs from Barro's in several dimensions. First, Barro utilizes cross-sectional variation to identify long-run patterns. A possible problem of this specification could arise from omitted variable bias and reverse causality (Giavazzi and Tabellini, 2005). Second, a cross-country sample does not utilize the within country variation in the degree of democracy or adherence to the rule of law. A panel can exploit such variation. This could be especially important given Barro's application. His democracy variable comes from 1975 whereas his rule of law variable is from 1980. Therefore, he does not incorporate the post-1980 events into his analysis, including the large number of countries that democratized when the Soviet Union fell. Our study considers a panel dataset, spanning 1984 to 2010, and so considers these changes. Use of a panel also allows us to examine timing issues which were not feasible given Barro's approach. We consider short and long-run effects of democracy upon the rule of law. Perhaps democracy initially supports the rule of law but then the effects of democracy turn negative as rent-seeking becomes more frequent. …

Posted Content
TL;DR: The conceptual/intellectual revolution in the outlook of the court regarding the nature of its judicial function has been discussed in this paper, where the original view, according to which the sole function of a court in the area of public law is to decide disputes between citizens and public authorities, has been abandoned and replaced by an outlook that views the court as an institution responsible for the legality of public administration, or, as the court it self is accustomed to defining the matter, for the rule of law.
Abstract: It would be impossible in a short lecture to give a comprehensive survey of all the changes that have occurred in the last forty years in that branch of law known as "Israel common law". I will not, therefore, try to do so. Instead, I wish to single out the most distinctive phenomenon in this area of law. I refer to the conceptual/intellectual revolution in the outlook of the court regarding the nature of its judicial function. The original view, according to which the sole function of the court in the area of public law is to decide disputes between citizens and public authorities, has been abandoned and replaced by an outlook that views the court as an institution responsible for the legality of public administration, or, as the court it self is accustomed to defining the matter, for the rule of law. I shall divide my discussion into two parts. In the first part I will briefly discuss the prominent changes that have occurred in the judicial decisions regarding public law in recent years, and the judicial philosophy underlying these changes. I will then analyse a few judgments that were handed down during the first two or three years of the Supreme Court's existence in Israel, in an attempt to demonstrate the judicial outlook underlying those decisions. It seems to me that demonstrating this earlier outlook will suffice to make clear the nature of the judicial revolution.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the credibility of each party and agent in a family law case is evaluated using three variables: guiding principle that orients the court's decision, confirmation of maternal manipulation in the psycho-social report, and establishing credibility of the child's testimony.
Abstract: Judicial Family Law proceedings are peculiar; a large number of cases are never closed, until the children reach adulthood. We selected three variables to test whether they can explain the credibility of each party and agent in the proceedings: guiding principle that orients the court's decision, confirmation of maternal manipulation in the psycho-social report, and establishing credibility of the child's testimony. An incidental sample of 169 people was used. The three manipulated variables imply very different levels of credibility for each party to the proceedings. Finally, proposed modifications to court proceedings are suggested to ensure adequate protection of children.

Journal ArticleDOI
Jin Zining1
TL;DR: Wang et al. as discussed by the authors explored the practices of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law in China's courts by examining 107 judicial decisions and found that unlike in Germany or Japan, all kinds of EIA decisions made by environment protect bureaus (EPBs) in China were widely taken as justiciable.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In the courtroom legal authority must be performed by the presiding judicial officer as discussed by the authors, and it is also a social situation where information and emotions must be managed in face-to-face interactions.
Abstract: In the courtroom legal authority must be performed by the presiding judicial officer. It is also a social situation where information and emotions must be managed in face-to-face interactions. This...

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors summarizes the science regarding sex offender policy from the point of imprisonment to reentry, and explains how the driver for sex offender law and policy is legal moralism grounded in and advanced by utilitarian reasoning and duty-based logic.
Abstract: The science examining institutional and community-based responses to sexual offending has been well documented. The responses to this form of criminal behavior include penal incarceration followed by civil commitment, community notification, and sex offender registration. To date, evidence-based findings report that these correctives and/or curatives yield limited effectiveness sufficient to justify their continued maintenance as statewide or even national criminal justice and mental health policy prescription. One official systems-level way that policy receives legitimacy is through the Courts. Interestingly, the precedent-setting sex offender case law indicates that current policy prescriptions are constitutionally permissible and therefore justifiable as regulatory practices, notwithstanding the empirical evidence that challenges their soundness. This article summarizes the science regarding sex offender policy from the point of imprisonment to reentry, recounts the relevant case law that judicially sanctions such institutional and community practices, and explains how the driver for sex offender law and policy is legal moralism grounded in and advanced by utilitarian reasoning and duty-based logic. This article concludes by suggesting how judicial reliance on legal moralism could further the interests of public safety and civil liberties if insights from virtue jurisprudence informed the analysis. Language: en

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper found that at a statistically significant level, law professors at elite law schools who make donations to Democratic political candidates write liberal scholarship and law professors who make donation to Republican political candidates wrote conservative scholarship.
Abstract: Law professors routinely accuse each other of making politically biased arguments in their scholarship. They have also helped produce a large empirical literature on judicial behavior that finds that judicial opinions sometimes reflect the ideological biases of the judges who join them. Yet no one has used statistical methods to test the parallel hypothesis that legal scholarship reflects the political biases of law professors. This paper provides the results of such a test. We find that, at a statistically significant level, law professors at elite law schools who make donations to Democratic political candidates write liberal scholarship and law professors who make donations to Republican political candidates write conservative scholarship. These findings raise questions about standards of objectivity in legal scholarship.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors found that female and more liberal judges are substantially more likely to write opinions in sexual harassment cases and that this pattern appears to result not from policy-driven behavior by female and liberal assigners but from an institutional environment in which judges seek out opinions they wish to write.
Abstract: We evaluate opinion assignment and authorship on the US courts of appeals. We derive theoretical explanations and predictions for opinion assignment that are motivated by the courts of appeals’ distinct institutional setting. Using an original data set of sexual harassment cases, we test our predictions and find that female and more liberal judges are substantially more likely to write opinions in sexual harassment cases. We further find that this pattern appears to result not from policy-driven behavior by female and liberal assigners but from an institutional environment in which judges seek out opinions they wish to write. Judicial opinions are the vehicles of judicial policy, and thus these results have important implications for the relationship between legal rules and opinion assignment and for the study of diversity and representation on multimember courts.