The Judicial Role and Sentencing Behavior

Jaros, Dean; Mendelsohn, Robert I.

doi:10.2307/2108736

Cited by 22 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I label this approach the "legal model" because it is similar in many respects to an approach used by researchers studying U.S. courts (Brace andHall 1997, 1993;Dixon 1995;Emmert 1992;Engen and Steen 2000;George and Epstein 1992;Gibson 1978;Jacob and Eisenstein 1975;Jaros and Mendelsohn 1967;Kritzer 1978;Mears 1998). The legal model stresses that legally "relevant" variables, rather than "extralegal" or political factors, are most predictive of judicial behavior in a variety of settings but especially in trial courts.…”

Section: The Legal Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Victor's Justice or the Law? Judging And Punishing At The International Criminal Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia

Meernik

2003

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of fair and impartial criteria for judging those accused of international crimes is one of the most critical issues facing the international community and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Are the resources, experience, and moral force so weighted in favor of the international community that the accused cannot obtain a fair contest? Are international criminal trials legalistic exercises that cloak a victor's justice, or do such courts premise their decisions on fair criteria? Data on ICTY verdicts and punishment of convicted war criminals show that the ICTY judges follow a "legal" model and that punishment is based primarily on the gravity of the crimes committed and the defendant's level of responsibility in the political and military chain of command. Political factors largely do not explain verdicts or sentences.

show abstract

Section: The Legal Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Victor's Justice or the Law? Judging And Punishing At The International Criminal Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia

Meernik

2003

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since then, sentencing disparities have been examined all over the world, firstly in the US (cf. D 'Esposito 1969;Jaros and Mendelsohn 1967;Austin and Williams 1977;Parker 1965), then in the UK (cf. Davies 1974) and other common law countries (cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex, Age, Education, Marital Status, Number of Children, and Employment – the Impact of Extralegal Factors on Sentencing Disparities

Mamak

Dudek²,

Koniewski

et al. 2022

Eur.J. Crime Crim. Law Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Countries that have judicial discretion in their legal system usually struggle with sentencing disparities. This is no different in Poland. The current study examined whether extralegal factors such as age, sex, education, marital status, number of children, and having a job impact sentencing disparities. We examined court files from 13 district courts in Poland for two offenses: drug possession and drunk driving. Our findings show that sex, age, and number of children have no or little effect on outcomes, whilst marital status and employment status have small to medium effects on sentencing. The clearest result pattern to emerge from our analyses is that defendants with tertiary education are treated more leniently than those with primary or lower secondary education.

show abstract

“…We address that question in the context of state supreme court decision making in criminal appeals, which is widely assumed to possess a strong ideological component, and hence provides an excellent means of testing role theory. Judicial role theory was introduced during the 1960s (see, e.g., Becker 1965Becker , 1966; Glick and Vines 1969;James 1968;Vines 1969) and received considerable scholarly attention during the 1970s (see Flango, Wenner, and Wenner 1975;Galanter, Palen, and Thomas 1979;Glick 1971;Howard 1977;Jaros and Mendelsohn 1977;Wold 1974). Perhaps the most lucid theoretical exposition and compelling empirical validation were provided by James Gibson in the late 1970s (see Gibson 1977Gibson , 1978.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideology, Role Orientations, and Behavior in the State Courts of Last Resort

Scheb

Bowen

Anderson

1991

American Politics Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judicial role theory holds that variance in judges' perceptions of their decisional roles is related to variance in decision making indirectly, by determining the degree to which judges permit their political attitudes and policy preferences to influence their votes. Judicial "activists" are thus presumed to be more overtly ideological in their decisions than "restraintists." This study tests judicial role theory against attitudinal and behavioral data for a national sample of state supreme court justices. As hypothesized, judicial activists are shown to be more ideological than their restraintist counterparts. The findings suggest that judicial role orientation is an important element of any comprehensive theory of judicial behavior.

show abstract

The Judicial Role and Sentencing Behavior

Cited by 22 publications

References 0 publications

Victor's Justice or the Law? Judging And Punishing At The International Criminal Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia

Victor's Justice or the Law? Judging And Punishing At The International Criminal Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia

Sex, Age, Education, Marital Status, Number of Children, and Employment – the Impact of Extralegal Factors on Sentencing Disparities

Ideology, Role Orientations, and Behavior in the State Courts of Last Resort

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About