Judges in the Lab: No Precedent Effects, No Common/Civil Law Differences - Archive ouverte HAL Access content directly
Journal Articles SSRN Electronic Journal Year : 2020

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

, , (1) , , , , ,
1
Holger Spamann
  • Function : Author
Lars Klöhn
  • Function : Author
Christophe Jamin
  • Function : Author
  • PersonId : 1208699
  • IdRef : 030127777
Vikramaditya Khanna
  • Function : Author
John Zhuang Liu
  • Function : Author
Pavan Mamidi
  • Function : Author
Alexander Morell
  • Function : Author
Ivan Reidel
  • Function : Author

Abstract

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.
Not file

Dates and versions

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

Identifiers

Cite

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⟩
8 View
0 Download

Altmetric

Share

Gmail Facebook Twitter LinkedIn More