2015
DOI: 10.3138/cjccj.2914.e08
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Canadian Exclusion of Evidence Under Section 24(2) of the Charter: An Empirical Model of Judicial Discourse

Abstract: Margit Cohn and Mordechai Kremnitzer developed a multidimensional 17-parameter model, in 2005, to measure the judicial discourse in the decisions of constitutional courts. A court rendered a decision that was activist when it made a decision outside the traditional scope of judicial constraints on government action and that was restrained when they adhered to the principles of traditional adjudication roles. Previously, this model was successfully operationalized, by Jochelson et al. (2012), to analyse signifi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 11 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Content analysis in legal research is an empirical form of discourse analysis. It entails a systemic analysis of many judicial rulings representing a particular field, time, or setting and facilitates drawing large-scale conclusions regarding the relationships between law and society (Hall and Wight 2008; Murchison and Jochelson 2015; Kirkham and O’Loughlin 2019). Content analysis of judicial discourse allows us to interrogate the social construction of ideas (Barret, Fann Thomas, and Hocevar 1995) and the cultural contexts and political settings that shape judges’ vocabulary and rhetorical preferences (Kalimo, Meyer, and Mylly 2018).…”
Section: Theoretical Framework: Disability Torts and Judicial Discoursementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Content analysis in legal research is an empirical form of discourse analysis. It entails a systemic analysis of many judicial rulings representing a particular field, time, or setting and facilitates drawing large-scale conclusions regarding the relationships between law and society (Hall and Wight 2008; Murchison and Jochelson 2015; Kirkham and O’Loughlin 2019). Content analysis of judicial discourse allows us to interrogate the social construction of ideas (Barret, Fann Thomas, and Hocevar 1995) and the cultural contexts and political settings that shape judges’ vocabulary and rhetorical preferences (Kalimo, Meyer, and Mylly 2018).…”
Section: Theoretical Framework: Disability Torts and Judicial Discoursementioning
confidence: 99%