Judges in the Lab: No Precedent Effects, No Common/Civil Law Differences - Sciences Po Accéder directement au contenu
Article Dans Une Revue SSRN Electronic Journal Année : 2020

Judges in the Lab: No Precedent Effects, No Common/Civil Law Differences

Holger Spamann
  • Fonction : Auteur
Lars Klöhn
  • Fonction : Auteur
Christophe Jamin
  • Fonction : Auteur
  • PersonId : 1208699
  • IdRef : 030127777
Vikramaditya Khanna
  • Fonction : Auteur
John Zhuang Liu
  • Fonction : Auteur
Pavan Mamidi
  • Fonction : Auteur
Alexander Morell
  • Fonction : Auteur
Ivan Reidel
  • Fonction : Auteur

Résumé

In our lab, 299 real judges from seven major jurisdictions (Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, USA) spend up to 55 minutes to judge an international criminal appeals case and determine the appropriate prison sentence. The lab computer (1) logs their use of the documents (briefs, statement of facts, trial judgment, statute, precedent), and (2) randomly assigns each judge (i) a horizontal precedent disfavoring, favoring, or strongly favoring defendant, (ii) a sympathetic or an unsympathetic defendant, and (iii) a short, medium, or long sentence anchor. Document use and written reasons differ between countries but not between common and civil law. Precedent effect is barely detectable and estimated to be less, and bounded to be not much greater, than that of legally irrelevant defendant attributes and sentence anchors.
Fichier non déposé

Dates et versions

hal-03591165 , version 1 (28-02-2022)

Identifiants

Citer

Holger Spamann, Lars Klöhn, Christophe Jamin, Vikramaditya Khanna, John Zhuang Liu, et al.. Judges in the Lab: No Precedent Effects, No Common/Civil Law Differences. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2020, 1044, pp.1-127. ⟨10.2139/ssrn.3700289⟩. ⟨hal-03591165⟩
18 Consultations
0 Téléchargements

Altmetric

Partager

Gmail Facebook X LinkedIn More