A Gramscian Approach to Studying the Judicial Decision-Making Process

This paper applies a Gramscian analytical framework to scrutinise the judicial decision-making process. Based on two distinct research projects, the article explores how, on one hand judges in criminal courts can be identified as part of the bureaucratic machinery of the state, as ‘technicians of repression’; whereas, on the other hand, human rights judges can be distinguished as providing ‘moral and intellectual leadership’ in their production and reproduction of certain values. Some of the key questions this article seeks to answer are: What is the role of hegemony in the judicial decision-making process? To what extent are legal actors both ‘technicians of repression’ and ‘moral and intellectual leaders’? This paper uses examples from empirical research conducted at courts in Argentina and at the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights to identify and explore this dual role of judges as both repressive technicians and moral and intellectual leaders in neo-liberal capitalist societies.     

Can feminist judges make a difference?

Many of the expectations and aspirations about the ‘difference’ that women judges would make have proved unrealistic, given the inevitable diversity and often conservatism of women appointed as judges. On the other hand, we might reasonably expect feminist judges to ‘make a difference’. This essay focuses on feminist judges, and seeks to identify what it is that we might reasonably expect of them. This in turn requires consideration of who counts as a feminist judge, what might be included in a feminist approach to judging, and what institutional norms inherent within the judicial role might constrain the adoption of a feminist approach. The essay concludes that feminist judges both can and ought to make a difference across a wide range of judicial activities.     

Judges as Readers,Authors and Dialecticians: Legal Interpretation in the EC<Emphasis Type="Italic">t</Emphasis>HR Cases on Mental Disability

The wording of major human rights texts—constitutions and international treaties—is very similar in those provisions, which guarantee everyone the right to family, privacy, protection against discrimination and arbitrary detention, and the right to access the court. However, judges of lower national courts, constitutional judges and judges of the European Court of Human Rights often read the same or seemingly the same texts differently. This difference in interpretation gives rise not only to disputes about the hierarchy of interpretative authorities, but to more general disputes about limits of judicial construction and validity of legal arguments. How it may happen, that the national courts, which apply constitutional provisions or provisions of national legislative acts, which are seemingly in compliance with the international human rights standards, come to different results with the international judges? Do they employ different interpretative techniques, share different values or develop different legal concepts? Do international judges ‘write’ rather than ‘read’ the text of the Convention? Who is, in Plato’s terms, a name-giver and who has a power to define the ‘correctness’ of names? The answers to these questions from the rhetorical and semiotic perspectives are exemplified by the texts of the judicial decisions on the rights of persons with mental disabilities.     

An introduction to judicial fact-finding

This article seeks to provide an introduction as to how judges determine facts. It draws on material across a range of jurisdictions as to how judges themselves have described what they do and what they ought to do. It explores what factors judges take into account when deciding whether the evidence of a witness is credible. It examines the difference between recollection and reconstruction of events by witnesses and considers how judges draw inferences from primary facts. The importance of documentary evidence, expert evidence, judicial notice and the giving of reasons in the fact-finding process are also explored.     

Prison sentences: last resort or the default sanction?

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses the sentencing purposes for penal penalties, judges’ perceptions of sentencing purposes and prison sentences, and the effects of penal sanctions. We examine judges’ positions towards different penalties, with a focus on imprisonment, since their views on the different penalties are related to their sentencing decision-making. Understanding these views is then critical for several practical and political purposes, including bridging the gap between academic discourse and legal practice. We accessed judges’ views on penal sanctions through a questionnaire and an interview. Our sample is compounded by the judges of the criminal courts from the three major cities in Portugal. Despite the most recent criminological empirical knowledge, judges valued imprisonment as the most adequate sentence, both for different crimes and for different judicial purposes. This result is not consistent with viewing imprisonment as a ‘last resort’ solution. Indeed, we did not find this ‘last resort’ position in our data, and it is not apparent in the judicial statistics on imprisonment rates. Our data highlight the importance of increasing judges’ training on criminological and sociological issues as well as the importance of changing the influence of their personal beliefs regarding penal sanctions into research-based positions.     

Judging gender: difference and dissent at the Supreme Court of Canada

Over 25 years ago, Justice Bertha Wilson asked “Will women judges really make a difference?” Taking up her question, we consider the place of difference in gender and judging. Our focus is on those ‘differences of opinion’ between judges that take the form of written and published judicial dissent. We present and interrogate recent statistics about practices of dissent on the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to gender. The statistics are provocative, but do not provide straightforward answers about gender and judging. They do, however, pose new questions, and suggest the importance of better theorizing and exploring the space of dissent.     

Risks of Criminal Victimization in Contemporary Urban China: An Application of Lifestyle/Routine Activities Theory

The philosophical underpinnings of youth courts rest on the notion that youths are less culpable and more reformable than adults. Some scholars argue that, ideally, when sentencing youth crime, judges should engage youthful offenders in moral communication to elicit change. But do they? What more generally do judges say to the youths? This paper analyzes the frequency and content of judicial censure and moral communication in the sentencing of youth sex offenders. Drawing on the sentencing remarks for 55 sexual violence cases, we examine the ways in which judges interact with youths and censure the offenses, and what, if any, normative guidance they give concerning gender, sexuality, and violence. We found that in most but not all cases, the judges censured the offending as both a moral and legal wrong. However, they spent more time discussing a youth’s future than past behavior, as they sought to elicit change. The judges did not degrade or exclude the offenders; rather, they addressed them in a spirit of reintegration, as worthy individuals with future potential. Although the judges set norms of appropriate sexual behavior to the youths when the offense victims were children, they did not always do so when victims were female peers. In this Youth Court, “real rape” was sexual offending by a youth against a child under 12 years of age. By contrast, in about one‐fifth of cases, all of which occurred against a female peer, the offending was censured only as a legal wrong (a “pseudo censure”) and less likely subject to judicial norm setting.     

Being a woman judge in Turkish judicial culture

ABSTRACT

This study is a feminist exploration of how gender influences the professional and social lives of women judges in Turkey. I asked women judges from lower courts to talk about their professional journey to explore if and how gender emerges as a category that makes sense to them. Gender was sometimes more visible in the form of a “success” story of playing along men’s rules, or in memories of struggling to balance work and family; while other times it was more implicit in narratives on meeting expectations, failing expectations, ignoring expectations. All in all, these narratives attest to the gendered hierarchies and instances of institutional sexism in what is considered a masculine profession. They also reveal the prevalence of a particularly conservative and patriarchal culture upon the ways in which these inequalities and disadvantages are experienced by women judges in Turkey.     

The European Judicial Organisation in a New Paradigm: The Influence of Principles of ‘New Public Management’ on the Organisation of the European Courts

Recent reforms regarding the European Courts raise the question in which way do ‘new public management’ principles influence the European judicial organisation and how is a balance struck between these principles and classic ‘rule of law’ principles? The article first presents a classification of these types of principles in the framework for discussion regarding the European judicial organisation. Starting out from two paradigms, an inquiry is made into the status of the two sets of principles in the present‐day European ‘constitutional’ framework. Second, the interaction of principles is investigated with regard to a number of current dilemmas, including the demarcation of the judicial domain, the management of the Courts and the distribution of judicial competences.     

Judicial Responsiveness to Valence Issues: An Event History Analysis of the Initial Sex Offender Registration and Notification (SORN) Laws

Under what conditions does judicial responsiveness to the public's policy preferences compromise the court's role as a countermajoritarian institution? Scholars have yet to examine whether and how quickly state appellate court justices respond to valence issues. This study investigates the relationship between retention elections and judicial responsiveness to the initial sex offender registration and notification (SORN) laws popularized in the 1990s. Findings show that judges who participated in nonpartisan retention elections exhibited greater democratic accountability by engaging in judicial review of SORN laws earlier than judges in other retention election systems. Valence issues create political challenges for nonpartisan judges who, like their counterparts in other retention systems, are expected to balance majoritarian interests with minority rights.     

司法经验中的生活体验——从典型女性法官形象切入

从典型女性法官的司法经验来看,她们之所以在日常的司法工作中有着突出的表现,以及她们的司法经验更易于获得社会的普遍认同,就在于她们都努力将个人的生活体验融入司法经验之中,不仅善于以"做人"的方式来"做事",而且也习惯于以"过日子"的态度和原则来"工作"。这些典型女性法官的司法经验和形象对于当下中国司法而言,可能意味着不仅要建构一种整体性司法知识观与司法模式,而且也要求中国法官能够运用一种更加实用也更生活化的司法方法。换言之,这些典型女性法官的司法经验对于当下中国的司法及其发展而言,可能意味着要以一种符合现代中国人的生活化眼光和生存性智慧来再造司法的知识理论与实践模式,在促成法律生活与日常生活更加紧密的互动融通的基础上,使司法及其方法更加规范化和生活化,唯此,才可能确保司法在更好地满足社会生活与司法需求的同时推动司法制度的良性发展。     

A 'European' Conception of Legal Consciousness: Rediscovering Eugen Ehrlich

This paper discusses the present ‘legal consciousness’ literature and seeks to identify two different conceptions of legal consciousness. Most of this literature originated in the United States, but there has also been a growing interest in issues of legal consciousness in Europe. The use of the term ‘legal consciousness ’ in these European discussions is, however, remarkably different from its use in the United States literature. It is argued that the most commonly used ‘American ’ conception of legal consciousness reflects important ideas of Roscoe Pound and asks: how do people experience (official) law? By contrast, a European conception of legal consciousness, which was first introduced by the Austrian legal theorist Eugen Ehrlich, focuses on: what do people experience as ‘law ’? After both perspectives are applied in a case‐study of a run‐down neighbourhood in the Netherlands, it is concluded that future studies of legal consciousness may benefit from an integration of the two conceptions.     

Informal Institutions and Judicial Independence in Paraguay, 1954–2011

This article explains how informal institutions have prevented the emergence of autonomous judges in Paraguay between 1954 and 2011. The central argument is that co‐optation, clientelism, and judicial corruption considered as informal institutions, rooted during the dictatorship, have impeded the appearance of an independent judicial branch in the democratic regime. To test this hypothesis, the article relies on historical narratives, surveys, and semistructured interviews. The conclusions suggest that in countries that have experienced the consolidation of informal institutions oriented toward maintaining the ties of subordination of judges to politicians, constitutional reforms and fragmentation of political power are necessary but not sufficient conditions for improving judicial independence.     

Sentencing Transparency in the Information Age

How unrestricted or restricted should judges be when deciding a sentence? To what extent should sentences be predetermined, or to what extent should judges be left with the right to decide a sentence in each individual case? Some legal systems, most notably in the United States, have chosen sentencing guidelines to control judicial discretion. However, another approach has been to use computer technology in the form of so‐called sentencing information systems (SIS). This article examines these developments and what possible influence they have had and could have in the Scandinavian, particularly in the Norwegian, context. Penal institutions today are adjusting to the demands of the information society. Does and could the fact that we are living in an increasingly technologically mediated world influence judicial decision‐making? The article argues that the use of technology is not simply a question of technological change, but is first and foremost a social and political phenomenon, related to the relations of trust in a society.     

Critical Punishment Memorialization in Canada

Recent criminological scholarship on penal history museums has shown how sites of popular culture tend to silence the voices of prisoners and present them in ways that legitimate the deprivation of their liberty. While representations that reinforce the penal status quo are observable at most Canadian penal history sites, there are outliers that situate imprisonment as a form of oppression, and account for prisoners’ struggles and resistance. Drawing on three case studies from a 5-year qualitative research project on Canadian lock-up, jail, prison and penitentiary museums, we discuss what critical punishment memorialization looks like in a context of penal intensification in Canada. We show how such critical representations depend on the historical contextualization of penality as a manifestation of colonialism and/or the incorporation of prisoners’ voices and standpoint. We argue that the critical representations and narratives at these museum sites open up possibilities for the social distance between penal spectators and the incarcerated to be diminished by bringing humanizing prisoner narratives into focus in an otherwise dark tourist space.     

Judges as satisficers: a law and economics perspective on judicial liability

If judges are guardians of the law, who is to protect the individual member of society from the occasional corrupt, malicious, or reckless judge? The aim of this paper is to provide an answer to the last part of this question, focusing more heavily on cases of negligently inflicted harm. Departing from Simon’s bounded rationality and influenced by other constructs in behavioral law and economics, we view judges as satisficers who make decisions within real-world constraints, such as imperfect information and uncertainty, cognitive limitations and erroneous information. Judges are limited by the commonly observed barriers to the decision making process. Because their goal is not to optimize but to render opinions that are merely satisfactory, they often act as poor agents of their principals’ interests. In this light, it becomes clearer why judges tend to engage in behavior that is “improper”, especially under the circumstances of the currently overloaded judicial caseloads. We first address the differences in judges’ roles in Anglo-American and Continental legal systems. We then present our simple model for judicial misbehavior based on an understanding of judges as “satisficers”. Next we discuss the particularities of judicial errors and introduce a realistic and viable construct of “inexcusable judicial error”. On this basis we evaluate the impact of various incentive schemes on judicial behavior, focusing on the civil liability of judges. We conclude that civil liability for grave judicial errors is the most adequate remedy.     

The Influence of the EU and the ECHR on ‘Parliamentary Sovereignty Regimes’: Assessing the Impact of European Integration on the British and Swedish Judiciaries

The paper analyses the consequences of European integration processes upon the judicial systems of the so‐called ‘parliamentary sovereignty regimes’, focusing on the British and Swedish judiciaries. The aim is to understand if the influences coming from European integration, favouring the expansion of domestic judicial power, have prevailed, or the traditional distrust of such countries in judicial power has prevented the empowerment of the domestic courts. The influences on the judicial systems are evaluated distinguishing judicial capacity, judicial attitudes and judicial independence. The paper argues that the political relevance of judges has strongly increased. However, while European integration has deeply transformed the formal means at disposal of judges, because of political and judicial culture the changes in actual judges' behaviour have been much more limited. Moreover, the paper highlights some unexpected ways in which European integration can affect the domestic political systems (eg favouring certain legislative reforms or legal principles).     

Judicial Work and Judges’ Motivation: The Perceptions of Brazilian State Judges

The professional ethos of judges has undergone many changes in Brazil in recent years, generating conflicts about the role of these professionals in society. This article examines how Brazilian judges deal with those conflicts. The objective is to identify how judges perceive their social role and, based on that, what motivates them in their work. A series of twenty‐five in‐depth interviews was carried out with Brazilian state judges working in all regions of the country in different judicial specialties. The findings indicate that the judges interviewed can be classified into four different profiles according to the predominant social role: (1) social activist; (2) service provider; (3) judicial restraint; and (4) defender of the status quo. Each profile corresponds to a specific individual and social motivation.     

Reasoned elaboration of equitable maxims

Wechsler thought matters of established precepts must be decided by ‘neutral principles’, requiring judges to provide ‘reasoned elaboration’. The objective of this research is to examine critically the judicial elaboration of the maxims of equity. Have judicially stated maxims of equity tended to conceal the underlying universal principles by an absence of reasoned elaboration? Argument tests the proposition that the maxims’ underlying principles are veiled, by the necessity of having to analyse their judicial elaborations, in order to infer their inherent principle. Only three of the studied maxims were true maxims. Others could not be subject to reasoned elaboration.     

Understanding judicial discretion

The main aim of this paper is to clarify the dispute over judicial discretion by distinguishing the different senses in which claims about judicial discretion can be understood and by examining the arguments for these various interpretations. Three different levels of dispute need to be recognized. The first concerns whether judges actually do exercise discretion, the second involves whether judges are entitled to exercise discretion, and the third is about the proper institutional role of judges. In this context, the views of Dworkin, Raz, Perry, Greenawalt, and Sartorius are examined. Finally, it is suggested that a resolution of the judicial discretion controversy requires a satisfactory theory of the justification of judicial decisions.