scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

Majority opinion

About: Majority opinion is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 4107 publications have been published within this topic receiving 54845 citations. The topic is also known as: opinion of the court.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In preparing verbal autopsy material for epidemiological analyses and public health interpretations, the possibility of multiple causes of death per case, and some sense of any disagreement or uncertainty encountered in interpretation at the case level, need to be captured and incorporated into overall findings, if evidence is not to be lost along the way.
Abstract: Arriving at a consensus between multiple clinical opinions concerning a particular case is a complex issue - and may give rise to manifestations of the democratic fallacy, whereby a majority opinion is misconstrued to represent some kind of "truth" and minority opinions are somehow "wrong". Procedures for handling multiple clinical opinions in epidemiological research are not well established, and care is needed to avoid logical errors. How to handle physicians' opinions on cause of death is one important domain of concern in this respect. Whether multiple opinions are a legal requirement, for example ahead of cremating a body, or used for supposedly greater rigour, for example in verbal autopsy interpretation, it is important to have a clear understanding of what unanimity or disagreement in findings might imply, and of how to aggregate case data accordingly.In many settings where multiple physicians have interpreted verbal autopsy material, an over-riding goal of arriving at a single cause of death per case has been applied. In many instances this desire to constrain findings to a single cause per case has led to methodologically awkward devices such as "TB/AIDS" as a single cause. This has also usually meant that no sense of disagreements or uncertainties at the case level is taken forward into aggregated data analyses, and in many cases an "indeterminate" cause may be recorded which actually reflects a lack of agreement rather than a lack of data on possible cause(s).In preparing verbal autopsy material for epidemiological analyses and public health interpretations, the possibility of multiple causes of death per case, and some sense of any disagreement or uncertainty encountered in interpretation at the case level, need to be captured and incorporated into overall findings, if evidence is not to be lost along the way. Similar considerations may apply in other epidemiological domains.

23 citations

Book
15 Dec 1990
TL;DR: Currie as discussed by the authors traces the development of the Supreme Court from Chief Justice Fuller (1888-1910) to the retirement of Chief Justice Burger (1969-1986), arguing that the Court's work in its second century revolved around two issues: the constitutionality of the regulatory and spending programs adopted to ameliorate the hardships caused by the Industrial Revolution and the need to protect civil rights and liberties.
Abstract: The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second Century traces the development of the Supreme Court from Chief Justice Fuller (1888-1910) to the retirement of Chief Justice Burger (1969-1986). Currie argues that the Court's work in its second century revolved around two issues: the constitutionality of the regulatory and spending programs adopted to ameliorate the hardships caused by the Industrial Revolution and the need to protect civil rights and liberties. Organizing the cases around the tenure of specific chief justices, Currie distinguishes among the different methods of constitutional exegesis, analyzes the various techniques of opinion writing, and evaluates the legal performance of different Courts. "Elegant and readable. Whether you are in favor of judicial restraint or judicial activism, whatever your feelings about the Warren Court, or the Renquist Court, this is a book that justifies serious study."--Robert Stevens, New York Times Book Review

23 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: Trevaskes et al. as mentioned in this paper examined the role of law and criminal justice process in dealing with individuals who committed crimes in the city of Baotou in Inner Mongolia.
Abstract: Courts and Criminal Justice in Contemporary China, by Susan Trevaskes. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2007. xii + 227 pp. US$70. 00/£46.00/euro72.45 (hardcover), US$27.95/£17.99/euro28.33 (paperback). Courts and Criminal Justice in Contemporary China is a timely study that examines two important aspects of judicial power, law-and-order campaigns and expressive punishment. Empirical research on criminal justice issues in the PRC is scarce, and Susan Trevaskes' study helps fill this gap. In Trevaskes' words, the book "examines today's court practices and their antecedents in China by exploring 'law on display' in local court trials, rallies and campaigns" (p. 1). Using the records of a local court, it analyzes the role of law and criminal justice process in dealing with individuals who committed crimes in the city of Baotou in Inner Mongolia. The book analyzes "how legal ideologies and practices help to shape and sustain dominant visions of 'the order of things' in [Chinese] society" (p. 3). The book contains eight chapters in addition to the introductory chapter. For readers not familiar with the Baotou court system, the introductory chapter gives a brief account of how the two levels of court, namely the Intermediate Court and the Basic Court, function. It also introduces readers to the principal sources of court records and official publications which have been used for analysis in this study. Chapter 1 analyzes historical and contemporary legislative developments in criminal court work with reference to two central problems, politics and authoritybuilding. The two problems push the court in different directions, resulting in tensions such as inconsistent adjudication and sentencing practice and the continued struggle to present the court system to the public as an effective mechanism for controlling crime. Subsequent chapters turn to the main tasks and agendas of court work. Chapter 2 discusses the use of law propaganda work and open court trials to help judicial officers develop their judicial authority and enhance the legitimacy of judicial decision-making and sentencing. Chapter 3 is concerned with expressive or "severe" punishment, such as occurs in public sentencing rallies. The main aim of public sentencing rallies is to educate the public about the crime and to demonstrate that the government is "tough on crime and criminals". This chapter contains a number of illustrative examples in which convicted and sentenced criminals are humiliated and shamed in the public space. …

22 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Four experiments provided evidence for when and why opinion minorities take more time than opinion majorities to report their opinions and show that minorities’ hesitancy in reporting their opinions depends on their motives to belong versus be unique and stems from normative influence processes.
Abstract: Four experiments provided evidence for when and why opinion minorities take more time than opinion majorities to report their opinions. In Study 1, participants who wrote about feeling overly different from—but not overly similar to—others were slower to report their opinions after being led to believe that they held a minority than majority opinion. In Studies 2 and 3, minority opinion holders’ hesitancy was attenuated among participants with a high dispositional need for uniqueness, and this effect was mediated by low need for uniqueness individuals’ beliefs that their minority opinions were less normative than their majority opinions (Study 3). In Study 4, a subtle need to belong manipulation amplified the differences in response times between opinion minorities and majorities. Together, these studies show that minorities’ hesitancy in reporting their opinions depends on their motives to belong versus be unique and stems from normative influence processes.

22 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the Indonesian Constitutional Court's surprisingly early and forceful assertion of its veto role in national politics has attracted a fair amount of academic attention, focusing on three main explanatory factors: the charismatic leadership provided by the Court's first Chief Justice, Jimly Asshiddiqie; Indonesia's fragmented political party system; and the judges' preparedness boldly to assert the Court’s powers in a way that built its public support.
Abstract: The Indonesian Constitutional Court’s surprisingly early and forceful assertion of its veto role in national politics has attracted a fair amount of academic attention. Contributions to date have emphasised three main explanatory factors: the charismatic leadership provided by the Court’s first Chief Justice, Jimly Asshiddiqie; Indonesia’s fragmented political party system; and the judges’ preparedness boldly to assert the Court’s powers in a way that built its public support. But is the Court still as powerful in its second decade as it was in its first? Two incidents in particular suggest that the Court’s strength may be declining: the attempted legislative curtailment of the Court’s mandate in 2011, and the resignation in 2013 of its third Chief Justice, Ali Mochtar, following his arrest on charges of corruption. While neither of these events has as yet resulted in any permanent change to the Court’s jurisdiction and powers, there is a sense that the Court is in trouble – that its heyday has passed and that it is less influential than it used to be. The purpose of this article is to evaluate this claim. It starts by developing a conceptual framework for assessing the performance of initially forceful constitutional courts. It then moves on to apply this framework to the Indonesian case. Assessed according to its capacity to support the consolidation of Indonesia’s democracy, the article argues, the Court’s power has indeed declined since its forceful start under Jimly. There are some signs, however, that the Court is on the rise again.

22 citations


Network Information
Related Topics (5)
International law
52K papers, 556.6K citations
76% related
Voting
33.6K papers, 791.3K citations
76% related
Politics
263.7K papers, 5.3M citations
75% related
Democracy
108.6K papers, 2.3M citations
75% related
Legitimacy
26.1K papers, 565.9K citations
75% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
202313
202238
202114
202027
201923
201820