Details
| Originalsprache | Englisch |
|---|---|
| Seiten (von - bis) | 223-249 |
| Seitenumfang | 27 |
| Fachzeitschrift | Journal of empirical legal studies |
| Jahrgang | 19 |
| Ausgabenummer | 1 |
| Frühes Online-Datum | 3 Feb. 2022 |
| Publikationsstatus | Veröffentlicht - 27 Feb. 2022 |
Abstract
Collegiality plays a central role in judicial decision-making. However, we still lack empirical evidence about the effects of collegiality on judicial decision-making. In this article, I argue familiarity, an antecedent to collegiality, improves judicial deliberations by encouraging minority dissent and a more extensive debate of different legal viewpoints. Relying on a novel dataset of 21,613 appeals in criminal cases at the German Federal Court of Justice between 1990 and 2016, I exploit quasi-random assignment of cases to decision-making groups to show that judges' pairwise familiarity substantially increases the probability that judges schedule a main hearing after first-stage deliberations. Group familiarity also increases the length of the justification of the ruling. The findings have implications for the way courts organize the assignment of judges to panels.
ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete
- Sozialwissenschaften (insg.)
- Ausbildung bzw. Denomination
- Sozialwissenschaften (insg.)
- Recht
Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung
Zitieren
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTex
- RIS
in: Journal of empirical legal studies, Jahrgang 19, Nr. 1, 27.02.2022, S. 223-249.
Publikation: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift › Artikel › Forschung › Peer-Review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Does Group Familiarity Improve Deliberations in Judicial Teams?
T2 - Evidence from the German Federal Court of Justice
AU - Swalve, Tilko
PY - 2022/2/27
Y1 - 2022/2/27
N2 - Collegiality plays a central role in judicial decision-making. However, we still lack empirical evidence about the effects of collegiality on judicial decision-making. In this article, I argue familiarity, an antecedent to collegiality, improves judicial deliberations by encouraging minority dissent and a more extensive debate of different legal viewpoints. Relying on a novel dataset of 21,613 appeals in criminal cases at the German Federal Court of Justice between 1990 and 2016, I exploit quasi-random assignment of cases to decision-making groups to show that judges' pairwise familiarity substantially increases the probability that judges schedule a main hearing after first-stage deliberations. Group familiarity also increases the length of the justification of the ruling. The findings have implications for the way courts organize the assignment of judges to panels.
AB - Collegiality plays a central role in judicial decision-making. However, we still lack empirical evidence about the effects of collegiality on judicial decision-making. In this article, I argue familiarity, an antecedent to collegiality, improves judicial deliberations by encouraging minority dissent and a more extensive debate of different legal viewpoints. Relying on a novel dataset of 21,613 appeals in criminal cases at the German Federal Court of Justice between 1990 and 2016, I exploit quasi-random assignment of cases to decision-making groups to show that judges' pairwise familiarity substantially increases the probability that judges schedule a main hearing after first-stage deliberations. Group familiarity also increases the length of the justification of the ruling. The findings have implications for the way courts organize the assignment of judges to panels.
KW - collegiality
KW - deliberation
KW - familiarity
KW - judicial decision-making
KW - minority dissent
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126262414&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/jels.12308
DO - 10.1111/jels.12308
M3 - Article
VL - 19
SP - 223
EP - 249
JO - Journal of empirical legal studies
JF - Journal of empirical legal studies
SN - 1740-1453
IS - 1
ER -