Judicial opinion

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

Derecho y economía

Abstract: espanolAnalisis de los argumentos consecuencialista economico y normativo en decisiones judiciales en materia laboral de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nacion Argentina EnglishAnalysis of the economical and normative consequentialist arguments in judicial decisions in labor questions from the Supreme Court of Justice of the Argentina Nation.

Guess who's coming to dinner? A preliminary model for the satisfaction of public opinion as a legitimate aim in sentencing

Abstract: This paper provides a preliminary outline of a possible model of how the satisfaction of public opinion could be used in a rational system of sentencing. As public opinion data concerning the criminal justice system is becoming increasingly sophisticated and readily available, and public opinion clearly plays a role in the sentencing decision, a model whereby the satisfaction of public opinion may be judiciously and effectively incorporated into the sentencing system is urgently required. Some of the pitfalls of using public opinion data are also highlighted as a caveat to the feasibility of such a model.

Judicial Activism, Punitivism and Supranationalisation: Illiberal and Antidemocratic Tendencies of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Abstract: This article takes a critical look at the following three key characteristics in recent judgements of the Inter-American Court: judicial activism, punitivism and supranationalisation. First, it seeks to illustrate that the Inter-American Court has modified in some significant regards the legal framework agreed upon by State parties (judicial activism); second, that this activism has undermined some of the liberal guarantees limiting the State’s power in criminal matters and has led to the creation of a law of exception (punitivism, or illiberal and contra conventionem judicial activism); third, that the Court, on the basis of the Convention’s provision on reparations, has required States to adopt measures that negatively affect their sovereignty, and has thus become dangerously close to acting as legislator, judge and supreme administrative authority of the American States (supranationalisation).

Judicial decisions on cases involving problem gambling and crime in England and Wales

Abstract: Previous research indicates that problem gambling is often associated with crime. Most of this research is focussed on individual psychological cases or data sets examining the relationship between crime rates and location of gambling venues. There is little international research on the response of criminal courts in recognising and accepting problem gambling as a reason for committing crime. This paper provides an examination of the Court of Appeal decisions in England and Wales from January 2000 to January 2009 drawing on the original cases and appeals. The findings of this research are relevant to an international audience where problem gambling is dismissed as a reason for committing crime when facing sentence. It was concluded that although judges recognised problem gambling as a condition, problem gambling did not appear to be accepted as a factor explaining the commission of the crime in England and Wales.

Trading Votes for Reasoning: Covering in Judicial Opinions

Abstract: Several studies report that judges on panels together with at least one judge of a different political party (a "mixed panel") tend to moderate their votes, particularly on politically charged subject matter cases We examine whether this observed moderation in voting is the product of bargaining among mixed panel judges, where authoring judges, who might otherwise face a dissenting vote (or find themselves in dissent), trade their votes for the ability to craft a unanimous majority opinion closer to their own policy preferences and thereby affect the opinion's precedential value Using judicial citation patterns within individual opinions as a proxy for how judges reason, we report that authoring judges on mixed panels are more likely to employ partisan reasoning for opinions relating to salient subject matter areas Partisan reasoning in top salient areas is higher where the authoring judges have more bargaining leverage over opposite party judges on the same panel Finally, partisanship in top salient areas is greater for authoring judges who have greater skill at writing influential opinions The overall pattern is consistent with judges engaging in covering: moderating their voting when associated with an opposite party judge on the same panel, a highly visible activity, but adjusting the judicial reasoning in the opinion to tilt the decision back toward the authoring judge's own preferred ideological position, a less visible activity done under the cover of the more visible, moderated vote