Judicial fact discretion by Nicola Gennaioli

Cover of: Judicial fact discretion | Nicola Gennaioli

Published by National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Mass .

Written in English

Read online

Subjects:

  • Judicial discretion -- Mathematical models

Edition Notes

Book details

StatementNicola Gennaioli, Andrei Shleifer.
SeriesNBER working paper series -- no. 12679., Working paper series (National Bureau of Economic Research) -- working paper no. 12679.
ContributionsShleifer, Andrei., National Bureau of Economic Research.
The Physical Object
Pagination39 p. :
Number of Pages39
ID Numbers
Open LibraryOL17631688M
OCLC/WorldCa76065317

Download Judicial fact discretion

In a standard model of a tort, judicial fact discretion leads to setting of damages unpredictable from true facts of the case but predictable from knowledge of judicial preferences, it distorts the number and severity of accidents, and generates welfare losses.

Judicial Fact Discretion Nicola Gennaioli and Andrei Shleifer ABSTRACT Following legal realists, we model the causes and consequences of trial judges exercising discretion in finding facts in a trial.

We identify two motivations for the exercise of such discretion: judicial policy preferences and judges’ aversion to reversal on appeal when File Size: KB. In the latter case, judges exercising fact discretion find the facts that fit the settled precedents, even when they have no policy preferences.

In a standard model of a tort, judicial fact discretion leads to setting of damages unpredictable from true facts of the case but predictable from knowledge of judicial preferences, it Cited by:   "In addition to the thoughtful analysis at the core of the book's mission, Judicial Discretion gives insight into both the author's recognition of the imprecision inherent in language as well as into his frustration at dealing with that imprecision This book should interest any thoughtful judge.

It should also interest a broader audience of lawyers and non-lawyers, since it directly. In this paper, we introduce judicial fact discretion into a formal analysis of trial court decision making, and examine its consequences4.

To this end, we identify two distinct motives for the exercise of judicial fact discretion. The first, emphasized by legal realists, is judicial bias5. As Posner (, by: This chapter analyses the basic principles of Judicial fact discretion book review pertaining to law, fact, and discretion.

First, it discusses the meaning accorded to these concepts in European Union (EU) law. It then examines the test for review for questions of law and explains the meaning accorded to it in the early case law.

The chapter ends with reflections on the standard of Judicial fact discretion book emerging from case law in Author: Paul Craig.

In fact discretion can be found in all stages of the criminal justice system. On appeal of an exercise of judicial discretion, too explicit in terms of nudity, violence, sexual content, or language.

From the book of Proverbs "like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a beautiful woman without discretion." References. the fact that judges are bound by legal principles precludes the exist-ence of judicial discretion properly so called.

Third (and somewhat tentatively, though it would seem to be a corollary of the non-existence of judicial discretion), the result of the judicial process is the enforcement of legal obligations and never ex post facto legislationCited by: 2.

In a standard model of a tort, judicial fact discretion leads to setting of damages unpredictable from true facts of the case but predictable from Judicial fact discretion book of judicial preferences, distorts the. Judicial discretion, according to our definition, is the power given to the judge to choose from among a number of possibilities, each of them lawful in the context of the system.

In the interpretation of a statutory rule, this power means the carrying out of one of the various possibilities that are embedded in the language of the statute.

In the latter case, judges exercising fact discretion find the facts that fit the settled precedents, even when they have no policy preferences. In a standard model of a tort, judicial fact discretion leads to setting of damages unpredictable from true facts of the case but predictable from knowledge of judicial preferences, distorts the number Cited by:   Discretion In The Criminal Justice System Discretion is the eminence of once behavior or the way of speaking in order to avoid any offensive occurrence or speaking up any private issues or information in public.

It is the self-determination for someone to choose or think what should be better to be done in particular circumstances. Especially for a judge, a public official or other private. Downloadable. Following legal realists, we model the causes and consequences of trial judges exercising discretion in finding facts in a trial.

We identify two motivations for the exercise of such discretion: judicial policy preferences and judges’ aversion to reversal on appeal when the law is unsettled. In the latter case, judges exercising fact discretion find the facts that fit the.

Judicial Discretion and US Supreme Court Agenda Setting Elizabeth A. Lane, Jessica A. Schoenherr, Rachel A. Schutte, and Ryan C. Black. The scene is familiar to anyone who has watched a movie or read a book about a lawsuit: the sympathetic protagonist loses his case, and his attorney promises him they still have one more chance to : Elizabeth A.

Lane, Jessica A. Schoenherr, Rachel A. Schutte, Ryan C. Black. Judicial discretion is a very broad concept because of the different kinds of decisions made by judges and because of the different limits placed on those decisions.

Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution grants the judiciary broad power, which extends "to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the.

Certain areas of law, including family law, juvenile, and probate generally allow for greater judicial exercise of powers of discretion than others.

Child Custody Fact-Finding Missions Judges presiding over family law cases have a fact-finding role in motion hearings, bench trials, and. Any lack of certainty as to what judicial discretion is may be thought undesirable. For if judicial discretions are dangerous as capable of leading to arbitrariness, it is as well judges should be quite clear when they are exercising a discretion and when not, and if the exercise of a discretion is a barrier to an appeal then appellate judges should similarly recognise when the barrier exists.

involving judicial discretion means no more than that judges should act thoughtfully. Second, the term is used frequently merely to refer to the finality of a decision of the court whether as to the law or as to the facts or as to some other type of question if any such type exists Full Description:" Judicial discretion Free entertainment for readers in need of it.

For low-cost entertainment, you can visit our online library and enjoy the countless collection of fame available for free. Our online libraries have books about every imaginable subject, and since they play stocks and constantly receive new books, you will never delete any reading material.

(Judicial discretion under S78 PACE & Stay of proceedings). Before analyzing the two we must first look at the difference between the two remedies. It has been firmly established that evidence obtained in undercover police operations can be excluded under section 78 PACE if the circumstances warrant it, to exclude evidence that if admitted.

In fact, minimum room for judicial discretion guarantees the soundness of any law. This is for the simple reason that the very premise on which exercise of judicial discretion stands is the absence of pre-defined standards, so the only thing that is required to turn it into an “abuse of power” is the slightest prejudice of mind by the court.

In the latter case, judges exercising fact discretion find the facts that fit the settled precedents, even when they have no policy preferences. In a standard model of a tort, judicial fact discretion leads to setting of damages unpredictable from true facts of the case but predictable from knowledge of judicial preferences, it Author: Nicola Gennaioli and Andrei Shleifer.

"Judicial Fact Discretion," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pagesJanuary. Gennaioli, Nicola & Shleifer, Andrei, " Judicial Fact Discretion," Scholarly ArticlesHarvard University Department of Economics.

The Problem of Judicial Discretion Anthony T. ~onman Martin Golding has performed a useful service for us by describing in summary form many of the main themes that have been at the center of American legal theory over the course of the lastcentury. From the range of topics thathedescribes, I wouldliketo pickoutonefor specialemphasisand.

Judicial discretion. Reno, Nev.: National Judicial College, American Bar Association at University of Nevada, Reno, (OCoLC) Document Type: Book: All Authors /. In the latter case, judges exercising fact discretion find the facts that fit the settled precedents, even when they have no policy preferences.

In a standard model of a tort, judicial fact discretion leads to setting of damages unpredictable from true facts of the case but predictable from knowledge of judicial preferences, distorts the number.

attention on the presence or absence of discretion, rather than on the intricate ways in which discretion and law interact in the process of decision making." Id at Professor Post would distinguish between discretion resulting from lessened review and discretion resulting from no legal standards.

at Author: Martha S. Davis. A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text.

7 Opportunities for pre-verdict judicial fact-finding in criminal trials were enumerated by S Phillipps, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence vol 1 (2nd edn Butterworth, London ) 8 For an exception, see R Mahoney, ‘Proving Preliminary Facts’ [] 15 NZULR –Cited by: 4.

ANALYSIS/OPINION: ABUSE OF DISCRETION: THE INSIDE STORY OF ROE V. WADE By Clarke Forsythe Encounter, $, pages. Roe v. Wade is easily one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions.

Facing Judicial Discretion: Legal Knowledge and Right Answers Revisited (Law and Philosophy Library) st Edition by M. Iglesias Vila (Author) ISBN ISBN Why is ISBN important. ISBN. This bar-code number lets you verify that you're getting exactly the right version or edition of a book.

Cited by: 9. Judicial notice is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well known, or so authoritatively attested, that it cannot reasonably be doubted.

This is done upon the request of the party seeking to rely on the fact at issue. Facts and materials admitted under judicial notice are accepted without being formally.

One Judge Makes the Case for Judgment. John Coughenour says federal sentencing guidelines are overly punitive, coldly algorithmic measures that strip the courtroom of nuance.

Without discretion Author: Matthew Van Meter. In The Concept of Law, H. Hart reinstates the thesis that laws genuinely are rules, explicable as that special kind of social rules found in a 'union of primary and secondary rules'.

He rejects the formalist view of legal rules and demonstrates that his own theory is essentially not a formalistic one. To this end, he explains how legal rules both do and should leave a considerable scope.

Judicial Discretion in Canada Judicial Discretion. Definition of Judicial Discretion by Rand Dyck and Christopher Cochrane (in their book “Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches”) in the context of political science in Canada: The leeway inevitably bestowed on the courts when they interpret laws, even when they do not, or have no power to, overturn them.

Constraining judicial discretion only exacerbates unjust sentencing rules and biased enforcement and charging decisions. Fact sheet at 1. The fact sheet concludes that “[c]alls to end the advisory system make sense only if the risk that judicial discretion causes unwarranted racial disparity outweighs the costs of a mandatory system.

Classical legal studies of discretion understand it in terms of the freedom to make legal decisions on the basis of doctrinal deliberation within the formal constraints, such as review powers, that exist over judges’ abilities to come to binding conclusions (Christie, ; Rosenberg, ).This approach traditionally views procedure as ‘a value-neutral means to apply the substantive law Cited by: 1.

Judicial Discretion* By Ronald Dworkin Words like 'discretion' and 'choice' have different senses, and it is conceivable that some who say that judges have discretion mean simply that judges have decisions to make, not already made by others for them, or that judges must reason or make judgments of one sort or another in making these decisions.

DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING. Discretion is the power or right to make official decisions using reason and judgment to choose from among acceptable alternatives. Legislatures, the president and the governors of the various states, trial and appellate judges, and administrative agencies are among the public officers and offices charged with making discretionary decisions in the discharge of.

Judicial decisions and the resulting disparities were driven by a judge’s perception of a defendant’s amenability to treatment. Discussions about judicial discretion cannot be viewed in a vacuum.

Research findings, for example, suggest that to look singularly at judicial discretion is to miss how judges and courtroom work groups interface. GROWTH AND CONSEQUENCES OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN SENTENCING Robert H. Vasoli* No task confronting the criminal court judge is more of an enigma than that of sentencing the convicted offender.

Trying a case, one English jurist put it, "is as easy as falling off a log. The difficulty comes in knowing what to doCited by: 2. Judicial Energy and the Supreme Court. a Reagan-era conservative activist who now edits The Weekly Standard, wrote a book back in that he .From even this short list, it should be obvious that expert testimony is a potentially dangerous weapon.

As we have seen, the law regulates jury verdicts in two ways: before the fact, by the exercise of judicial discretion in policing the evidence that juries may hear, and after the fact, by limiting as a matter of law the scope of the jury's permissible inferences from whatever evidence is.

63371 views Tuesday, November 24, 2020