IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-04163443.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Automated Classification of Modes of Moral Reasoning in Judicial Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Nischal Mainali

    (NYU - New York University [New York] - NYU - NYU System)

  • Liam Meier

    (NYU - New York University [New York] - NYU - NYU System)

  • Elliott Ash

    (University of Warwick [Coventry])

  • Daniel L. Chen

    (TSE-R - Toulouse School of Economics - UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - UT - Université de Toulouse - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

What modes of moral reasoning do judges employ? We construct a linear SVM classifier for moral reasoning mode trained on applied ethics articles written by consequentialists and deontologists. The model can classify a paragraph of text in held out data with over 90 percent accuracy. We then apply this classifier to a corpus of circuit court opinions. We show that the use of consequentialist reasoning has increased over time. We report rankings of relative use of reasoning modes by legal topic, by judge, and by judge law school.

Suggested Citation

  • Nischal Mainali & Liam Meier & Elliott Ash & Daniel L. Chen, 2023. "Automated Classification of Modes of Moral Reasoning in Judicial Decisions," Working Papers hal-04163443, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-04163443
    DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3205286
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-04163443
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-04163443/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2139/ssrn.3205286?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Aaron Nicholas & Birendra Rai, 2019. "Are Efficient Bargaining Power Disparities Unfair? An Experimental Test," Monash Economics Working Papers 02-19, Monash University, Department of Economics.

    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:hal:wpaper:hal-04163443. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.