scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

Judicial opinion

About: Judicial opinion is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 5300 publications have been published within this topic receiving 64803 citations.


Papers
More filters
Dissertation
06 Jun 2012
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors have proposed what seem to be the best domestication channels for supranational human rights judicial decisions in Africa and also proposed amendments to the so-called Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights.
Abstract: The present study deals with these two interconnected yet often forgotten realities of the constitutional order in Africa: First, the ?foreign affairs power‘ that gives the specific organs of the State the capacity to create and empower universal, regional and sub-regional governance and judicial structures.14 Secondly, the ?international judicial function in Africa‘, with focus on the African Court on Human and Peoples‘ Rights and the upcoming merger with the African Court of Justice. In this regard, we have proposed what seem to be the best domestication channels for supranational human rights judicial decisions in Africa. We have also proposed amendments to the so-called ?Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights.‘

16 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: For example, the substantive due process decisions of the last 40 years are modernizing decisions, unlike the pre-New Deal substantive due-process decisions to which they are often, mistakenly, compared as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Constitutional interpretation usually looks to the past--to an old text, to history, to precedent, to tradition — in an effort to limit political majorities. But recently, the Supreme Court has taken a different approach to the Constitution: It has tried to anticipate trends in public opinion instead of taking lessons from the past; and, at the same time, instead of facing down popular majorities, the Court has been prepared to give way if it learns that it has misgauged public opinion. This approach — which might be called modernization — has characterized the Supreme Court’s recent work in several areas, including the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment and the limits on sex discrimination imposed by the Equal Protection Clause. Perhaps most interesting, the substantive due process decisions of the last 40 years are modernizing decisions, unlike the pre-New Deal substantive due process decisions to which they are often, mistakenly, compared. Modernization is an appealing approach in many ways. Among other things, it holds out the hope of more easily reconciling judicial review with democracy. But modernization also raises serious questions--particularly that the courts may distort the political process and may be too willing to accommodate what they perceive as the demands of popular opinion, at the expense of a principled judicial role.

15 citations

Dissertation
01 Jan 2016
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explored the impact on the Mexican federal judiciary of steep rises in violent crime, proliferation of armed organized crime groups, greater involvement of the military in crime control activities and the government's "war on organized crime" and found that judges seem to have insulated themselves from the "enemy penology" promulgated by the government.
Abstract: Using a comparative case study design, this thesis explores the impact on the Mexican federal judiciary of steep rises in violent crime, proliferation of armed organised crime groups, greater involvement of the military in crime control activities and the government’s ‘war on organised crime’. The thesis develops ‘enemy penology’ as a theoretical framework based on the observation that the Mexican government has increasingly conceptualised offenders as enemies and called for an explicitly militarised criminal justice response. Drawing on this theoretical framework, the thesis analyses qualitative data from two different sites –a ‘crime control as warfare’ scenario (highly militarised state) and an unchanged context (less militarised state). Findings are examined within the enemy penology framework and also drawing on theories of judicial behaviour and judicial roles in order to explain the overarching finding that judges seem to have insulated themselves from the ‘enemy penology’ promulgated by the government. Analysis of 40 written judgements in drug cases and 28 semi-structured interviews with judges (drawn from a total of 56 interviews achieved during the fieldwork) indicated that decision making, guilt determination and sentencing were almost identical in the two locations despite stark differences in context. In both locations, the study observed an inclination to privilege police evidence, high conviction rates despite poor prosecutorial performance and insufficient evidence, and a tendency to impose minimum sentences. Interviewees discussed these issues as well as the impact of armed criminality, military involvement in crime control and judicial independence. Overall, the Federal judiciary appeared to be not influenced by the enemy penology paradigm reproduced by public officials and criminal policies. Mexican judicial behaviour was found to be strongly shaped by a formalistic and legalistic understanding of judicial duties where accuracy in law interpretation is expected, disregarding other goals, including politics and policy considerations. This understanding is enhanced by the judiciary through strict observance of precedents, reversals and enhancing law-interpreter and ritualist judicial roles. Nonetheless, the empirical data also showed that judges’ views and opinions are informed by strategic goals, attitudes, motives, managerial needs and the pursuit of self-respect and recognition. In sum, examining court judgements and judges’ views about deciding cases in the light of the prevalent ‘enemy penology’ provided a rich understanding of the way decision-making in criminal matters is constructed by judges as well as the complex and often contradictory layers that comprise the image and role of the Mexican federal judge.

15 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, a review of empirical research on judicial decision making in criminal, juvenile, and civil cases is presented, focusing on decision making at the trial court level, in those arenas that are most relevant to the forensic mental health practitioner (psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) who is called on to provide testimony to the courts.
Abstract: Judges play a central role in decision making in the justice system. This chapter reviews the extant empirical research on judicial decision making in criminal, juvenile, and civil cases. We discuss judges’ decision making about forensic mental health evidence introduced in these cases, judicial receptivity to various kinds of evidence, and their understanding of clinical and scientific evidence as well as the ways they make rulings about such evidence. We focus on decision making at the trial court level, in those arenas that are most relevant to the forensic mental health practitioner (psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) who is called on to provide testimony to the courts.

15 citations


Network Information
Related Topics (5)
International law
52K papers, 556.6K citations
81% related
Human rights
98.9K papers, 1.1M citations
79% related
Legitimacy
26.1K papers, 565.9K citations
78% related
Prison
25.1K papers, 470.4K citations
78% related
Democracy
108.6K papers, 2.3M citations
75% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
202314
202242
202196
2020160
2019174
2018176