Fiche du document
11 octobre 2020
- handle: 10670/1.71oi4m
- hal: hal-03591165
- doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3700289
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.2139/ssrn.3700289
Mots-clés
Common/civil law judicial decision-making experiment comparative law bias anchoring precedent methodologySujets proches
Legislative acts Legislative enactments Acts, Legislative Enactments, Legislative Laws (Statutes) Alcaldes Chief magistrates Justices Magistrates Judges--Legal status, laws, etc Chief justices CadisCiter ce document
Holger Spamann et al., « Judges in the Lab: No Precedent Effects, No Common/Civil Law Differences », Archive ouverte de Sciences Po (SPIRE), ID : 10.2139/ssrn.3700289
Métriques
Partage / Export
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.