Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/35823
Type of publication: Straipsnis / Article
Author(s): Tumonis, Vitalius;Šavelskis, Mykolas;Žalytė, Inga
Title: Judicial decision-making from an empirical perspective
Is part of: Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 2013 vol. 6, iss. 1, p. 140-162
Date: 2013
Keywords: Judicial decision-making;Legal realism;Heuristics & biases;Intuitive decision-making;Expert Judgment;Judicial decision-making;Legal realism;Heuristics & biases;Intuitive decision-making;Expert Judgment
Abstract: The traditional theories of judicial decision-making have their differences set around the importance of logical, rule-bound, and step-by-step reasoning. For legal formalists, judicial decision-making is predominantly a logical and rule-bound process, and ideally it is a product of syllogistic reasoning. For original legal realists and their contemporary counterparts, judicial decision-making is rarely a logical, step-by-step, and rule-bound process; more often than not, it is better epitomized by intuitive decisions. For a long time this question remained open. The purpose of this article is accordingly twofold. First, by relying on empirical research on decision-making, we argue that logical and rule-bound judicial decision-making, although possible in theory, is highly unlikely in practice. Second, by relying on indirect empirical evidence, we show that judges are very likely to possess unexceptional decision-making skills even when it comes to aspects of decision-making that have not been specifically tested on judges.
Internet: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2013-0007
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/35823
Appears in Collections:Baltic Journal of Law & Politics 2013, vol. 6, iss. 1

Files in This Item:
Show full item record

Page view(s)

38
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Download(s)

38
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.