Search

The current study begins to answer the recent call for scholars to reinvigorate the use of observational data to understand courtroom decisions. Drawing on the psychological effects of decision fatigue, the current study examines 284 bail hearing cases from two New Jersey jurisdictions to explore the role of decision fatigue on judges' engagement, judicial deviations from prosecutors' recommendations, and set bail amounts. The results suggest that judicial fatigue, measured as case order and session duration, limited the engagement for one judge, affected set bail amounts for both judges, and that proceeding modality may play some role in fatigue and engagement. Findings also suggest that observational data can work in tandem with administrative data to give better insight into the court process and decisions. Limitations and future research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article proposes a new cross-national thesis for judicial decision making. The judicial politicization theory posits that judges on highly politicized high courts will be more likely to decide cases using ideological and attitudinal factors than judges at less politicized courts. The theory holds that informal norms regarding judicial appointment by the executive are more important than the formal selection mechanism in determining whether a judiciary is highly or less politicized. The results show significant attitudinal judicial voting at each high court and strong support for the contention that judges on highly politicized courts are more likely to decide cases ideologically. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

While theoretical justifications predict that a judge's gender and race may influence judicial decisions, empirical support for these arguments has been mixed. However, recent increases in judicial diversity necessitate a reexamination of these earlier studies. Rather than examining individual judges on a single characteristic, such as gender or race alone, this research note argues that the intersection of individual characteristics may provide an alternative approach for evaluating the effects of diversity on the federal appellate bench. The results of cohort models examining the joint effects of race and gender suggest that minority female judges are more likely to support criminal defendants' claims when compared to their colleagues on the bench, even after controlling for other important factors. This suggests that our understanding of judicial behaviors may be assisted by the inclusion of how individual characteristics overlap rather than examining those characteristics alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assesses the attitudinal dimension that dominates judicial decision- making in Canadian context. Examination of the voting behavior of Canadian Supreme Court Justices in non-unanimous post-Charter cases; Disclosure of principal dimensions underlying the voting behavior; Observation of cases scoring.

The article focuses on the type of cases courts decide and the judgments they pass in the modern era of social technology. The cases the supreme court and other courts are called upon to decide are much too technical in most instances even to be considered intelligently by persons learned only in the law. The progress of science and technology has, in recent years, completely invalidated the idea that individuals lacking highly specialized training and experience can pass intelligent judgment upon complex technical questions. For example, in the Milk Control Board case indeed Justice Robert L. Hale went so far as to say that "there is no closed class or category of business affected with public interest "for it must be determined" in each case whether circumstances vindicate the challenged regulation as a reasonable exertion of governmental authority or condemn it as arbitrary or discriminatory." Each case had social and economic implications. Yet in each instance an irrelevant judgment was rendered as to whether certain acts were in violation of the Constitution, or of States rights. In no instance did a reviewing board of qualified, competent experts, hear all relevant facts and render an expert judgment.