IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/doi10.1086-688861.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Justice Is Less Blind, and Less Legalistic, than We Thought: Evidence from an Experiment with Real Judges

Author

Listed:
  • Holger Spamann
  • Lars Klöhn

Abstract

We experimentally investigate the determinants of judicial decisions in a setting resembling real-world judicial decision making. We gave US federal judges 55 minutes to adjudicate a real appeals case from an international tribunal, with minor modifications to accommodate the experimental treatments. The fictitious briefs focused on one easily understandable issue of law. Our 2 × 2 between-subject factorial design crossed a weak precedent and legally irrelevant defendant characteristics. In a survey, law professors predicted that the precedent would have a stronger effect than the defendant characteristics. In actuality, the precedent had no detectable effect on the judges' decisions, whereas the two defendants' affirmance rates differed by 45 percent. Judges' written reasons, on the other hand, did not mention defendant characteristics, focusing instead on the precedent and other legalistic and policy considerations.

Suggested Citation

  • Holger Spamann & Lars Klöhn, 2016. "Justice Is Less Blind, and Less Legalistic, than We Thought: Evidence from an Experiment with Real Judges," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 255-280.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/688861
    DOI: 10.1086/688861
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/688861
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/688861
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/688861?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eileen Braman & Thomas E. Nelson, 2007. "Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 940-956, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christoph Engel, 2022. "Judicial Decision-Making. A Survey of the Experimental Evidence," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2022_06, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    2. John Zhuang Liu & Xueyao Li, 2019. "Legal Techniques for Rationalizing Biased Judicial Decisions: Evidence from Experiments with Real Judges," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 630-670, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin Andrew D. & Hazelton Morgan L.W., 2012. "What Political Science Can Contribute to the Study of Law," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 511-529, October.
    2. Ash, Elliott & Chen, Daniel L. & Lu, Wei, 2018. "Motivated Reasoning in the Field: Partisanship in Precedent, Prose, Vote, and Retirement in U.S. Circuit Courts, 1800-2013," TSE Working Papers 18-976, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    3. Christoph Engel, 2022. "Judicial Decision-Making. A Survey of the Experimental Evidence," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2022_06, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    4. Eric Groenendyk & Yanna Krupnikov, 2021. "What Motivates Reasoning? A Theory of Goal‐Dependent Political Evaluation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 180-196, January.
    5. Lars Hornuf & Lars Klöhn, 2019. "Do judges hate speculators?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 147-169, April.
    6. Christoph Engel & Rima-Maria Rahal, 2022. "Eye-Tracking as a Method for Legal Research," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2022_07, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/688861. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.