Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Baltic Journal of Law & Politics

A Journal of Vytautas Magnus University

2 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.13

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.102
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.276

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2029-0454
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Judicial Decision-Making From An Empirical Perspective

Vitalius Tumonis Ph.D., LL.M., LL.B. / Mykolas Šavelskis LL.M., LL.B. / Inga Žalytė
Published Online: 2013-09-05 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2013-0007

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.

KEYWORDS: Judicial decision-making; legal realism; heuristics & biases; intuitive decision-making; expert Judgment

  • 1. Bedard, Jean, Michelene T. H. Chi, Lynford E. Graham, and James Shanteau. “Expertise in Auditing.” Auditing 12 (1993): 1-25.Google Scholar

  • 2. Carruthers, Peter. “An Architecture for Dual Reasoning”: 109-128. In: Jonathan Evans and Keith Frankish, eds. In Two Minds: Dual Processes andBeyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar

  • 3. Camerer, Colin F., and Eric J. Johnson. “The Process-Performance Paradox in Expert Judgment: How Can Experts Know So Much and Predict So Badly?”: 195-217. In: K. Anders Ericsson and Jacqui Smith, eds., Toward a GeneralTheory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.Google Scholar

  • 4. Chen, Serena, and Shelly Chaiken. “The Heuristic-Systemic Model in Its Broader Context”: 73-96. In: Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Trope, eds. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press, 1999.Google Scholar

  • 5. Colvin, Geoffrey. Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-ClassPerformers From Everybody Else. New York: Penguin Books, 2008.Google Scholar

  • 6. Danzigera, Shai, Jonathan Levav, and Liora Avnaim-Pessoa. “Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions.” Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences(USA) 108 (2011): 6889-92.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 7. Desvousges, William H., F. Reed Johnson, Richard W. Dunford, Kevin J. Boyle, Sara P. Hudson, and K. Nicole Wilson. “Measuring Natural Resource Damages with Contingent Valuation: Tests of Validity and Reliability”: 91-159. In: Jerry A. Hausman, ed. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1993.Google Scholar

  • 8. Englich, Birte, Thomas Mussweiler, and Fritz Strack. “Playing Dice with Criminal Sentences: The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts’ Judicial Decision Making.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32 (2006): 188-200.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 9. Ericsson, K. Anders. “The Influence of Experience and Deliberate Practice on the Development of Superior Expert Performance”: 685-706. In: Ericsson, K. Anders, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, and R. R. Hoffman, eds. The CambridgeHandbook of Expertise and Expert Performance Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar

  • 10. Ericsson, K. Anders. “The Acquisition of Expert Performance: An Introduction to Some of the Issues”: 1-50. In: K. Anders Ericsson, ed., The Road toExcellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences,Sports, and Games. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.Google Scholar

  • 11. Ericsson, K. Anders, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, and R. R. Hoffman, eds. TheCambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar

  • 12. Evans, Jonathan St. B. T. “How Many Dual-Process Theories Do We Need? One, Two, or Many?”: 33-54. In: Jonathan Evans and Keith Frankish, eds. InTwo Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar

  • 13. Frankish, Keith, and Jonathan St. B. T. Evans. “The Duality of Mind: An Historical Perspective”: 1-32. In: Jonathan Evans and Keith Frankish, eds. InTwo Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar

  • 14. Frederick, Shane. “Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making.” Journal ofEconomic Perspectives 19 (2005): 25-42.Google Scholar

  • 15. Gilovich, Thomas. How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of HumanReason in Everyday Life. New York: The Free Press, 1991.Google Scholar

  • 16. Guthrie, Chris, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, and Andrew J. Wistrich. “Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases.” Cornell Law Review 93 (2007): 1-44.Google Scholar

  • 17. Guthrie, Chris, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, and Andrew J. Wistrich. “Inside the Judicial Mind.” Cornell Law Review 86 (2001): 777-830.Google Scholar

  • 18. Hutcheson, Joseph C. Jr. “The Judgment Intuitive: The Function of the 'Hunch’ in Judicial Decision.” Cornell Law Journal 14 (1929): 274-288.Google Scholar

  • 19. Kahneman, Daniel, and Shane Frederick. “Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment”: 49-81. In: Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman, eds. Heuristics and Biases: ThePsychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.Google Scholar

  • 20. Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.Google Scholar

  • 21. Kiser, Randall. Beyond Right and Wrong: The Power of Effective DecisionMaking for Attorneys and Clients. Heidelberg: Springer, 2010.Google Scholar

  • 22. Krieger, Stefan. “The Development of Legal Reasoning Skills in Law Students: An Empirical Study.” Journal of Legal Education 56 (2006): 332-355.Google Scholar

  • 23. Lehman, Darrin R., Richard O. Lempert, and Richard E. Nisbett. “The Effects of Graduate Training on Reasoning: Formal Discipline and Thinking about Everyday-life Events.” American Psychologist 43 (1988): 431-442. Reprinted in: Richard E. Nisbett, ed. Rules for Reasoning. New Jersey: Routledge, 1993.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 24. Leiter, Brian. “Positivism, Formalism, Realism.” Columbia Law Review 99 (1999):1138-1164.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 25. Posner, Richard A. How Judges Think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.Google Scholar

  • 26. Radin, Max. “Legal Realism.” Columbia Law Review 31 (1931): 824-828.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 27. Radin, Max. “The Theory of Judicial Decisions: Or How Judges Think.” American Bar Association Journal 11 (1925): 357-362.Google Scholar

  • 28. Schauer, Frederick. “Is There a Psychology of Judging?”: 103-120. In: David E. Klein and Gregory Mitchell, eds. The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making (American Psychology-Law Society). New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.Google Scholar

  • 29. Schauer, Frederick. Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to LegalReasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009.Google Scholar

  • 30. Shah, Anuj K., and Daniel M. Oppenheimer. “Heuristics Made Easy: An Effort- Reduction Framework.” Psychological Bulletin 134 (2008): 207-222.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 31. Stanovich, Keith E. “Distinguishing the Reflective, Algorithmic, and Autonomous Minds: Is it Time for a Tri-Process Theory?”: 55-88. In: Jonathan Evans and Keith Frankish, eds. In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar

  • 32. Strak, Fritz, and Thomas Mussweiler. “Explaining the Enigmatic Anchoring Effect: Mechanisms of Selective Accessibility.” Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 73 (1997): 437-446.Google Scholar

  • 33. Sullivan, William M., Anne Colby, Judith Welch Wegner, Lloyd Bond, Lee S. Shulman. Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law (Jossey- Bass/Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching). California: Jossey-Bass, 2007.Google Scholar

  • 34. Tamanaha, Brian Z. Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.Google Scholar

  • 35. Tetlock, Philip E. Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can WeKnow? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.Google Scholar

  • 36. Tiedens, Larissa Z., and Susan Linton. “Judgment under Emotional Certainty and Uncertainty: The Effects of Specific Emotions on Information Processing.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (2001): 973-988.Google Scholar

  • 37. Toplak, Maggie E., Richard F. West, and Keith E. Stanovich. “The Cognitive Reflection Test as a Predictor of Performance on Heuristics-and-Biases Tasks.” Memory & Cognition 39 (2011): 1275-1289.Google Scholar

  • 38. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185 (1974): 1124-1130.Google Scholar

  • 39. Tumonis, Vitalius. “Legal Realism & Judicial Decision-making.” Jurisprudence 19 (2012): 1361-1382.Google Scholar

  • 40. Vohs, Kathleen D., and Mary Frances Luce. “Judgment and Decision Making”: 733-756. In: Roy F. Baumeister and Eli J. Finkel, eds. Advanced SocialPsychology: The State of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.Google Scholar

  • 41. Vohs, Kathleen D., Roy F. Baumeister, Brandon J. Schmeichel, Jean M. Twenge, Noelle M. Nelson, and Dianne M. Tice. “Making Choices Impairs Subsequent Self-control: A Limited Resource Account of Decision Making, Self-regulation, and Active Initiative.” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 94 (2008): 883-898.Google Scholar

  • 42. Wilson, Timothy D., and Jonathan W. Schooler. “Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions.” Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 60 (1991): 181-192. Google Scholar

  • 1. Adam, Barbara, and Joost Loon. “Repositioning Risk; the Challenge for Social Theory”: 1-31. In: Barbara Adam, Ulrich Beck, and Joost Loon, eds. The RiskSociety and Beyond. Sage Publications, 2005.Google Scholar

  • 2. Apklausa: VAI šalininkų ir priešininkų yra beveik po lygiai (Survey: VNPPSupporters and Opponents Are Almost Equal)) // http://klaipeda.diena.lt/naujienos/ekonomika/apklausa-vae-salininku-irpriesininku- yra-beveik-po-lygiai-428441#axzz2AJ7Ld26A (accessed June 12, 2013).Google Scholar

  • 3. Augutis, Juozas, Ričardas Krikštolaitis, Dainius Genys, and Giedrius Česnakas, eds. Lietuvos energetinis saugumas. Metinė apžvalga. 2011-2012 (LithuanianEnergy Security. Annual Review. 2011-2012.). Kaunas: Vytautas Magnus University, 2013.Google Scholar

  • 4. Baločkaitė, Rasa, and Leonardas Rinkevičius. “Branduolinės energetikos diskursai Lietuvos žiniasklaidoje ir viešojoje nuomonėje: nuostatų takoskyros ir ‘kalbančiųjų klasės’ formavimasis rizikos visuomenėje” (“Nuclear Power Discourse in Lithuanian Mass Media and Public Opinion: Attitudinal Divergences and the Emerging Talking and Acting Classes in the Risk Society”). Filosofija. Sociologija Vol. 20, No. 4 (2009): 259-270.Google Scholar

  • 5. Balžekienė, Aistė. Socialinis branduolinės rizikos suvokimas: teorinės įžvalgosir jų refleksija Lietuvos visuomenės požiūriuose į Ignalinos AE (SocialPerception of Nuclear Risk: Theoretical Insights and its Reflection inLithuanian Society Perception Towards Ignalina NPP). Ph.D. thesis. Kaunas: Kaunas University of Technology, 2006.Google Scholar

  • 6. Beck, Ulrich. “Living in the World Risk Society.” Economy and Society Vol. 35, No. 3 (2006): 329-345.Google Scholar

  • 7. Bourdieu, Pierre. “Social Space and Symbolic Power.” Sociological Theory Vol. 7, No. 1 (1989): 14-25.Google Scholar

  • 8. Česnakas, Giedrius. “Energy Security Challenges, Concepts and Controversy of Energy Nationalism in Lithuanian Energy Politics.” Baltic Journal of Law andPolitics 6:1 (2013) [forthcoming].Google Scholar

  • 9. Foucault, Michel. Diskurso tvarka (The Order of Discourse). Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1998.Google Scholar

  • 10. Foucault, Michel. Disciplinuoti ir bausti. Kalėjimo gimimas (To Discipline andto Punish: The Birth of the Prison). Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1998.Google Scholar

  • 11. Gaidys, Vladas, and Leonardas Rinkevičius. “Černobylio baimė, pigios energijos nauda ar kai kas daugiau? Dvidešimties metų visuomenės nuomonės apie Ignalinos AE sociologiniai tyrimai Lietuvoje” (“The Scares of Chernobyl, the Favoring of Cheap Energy or Something More? Twenty Years of Sociological Public Opinion Polls in Lithuania on the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant”). Filosofija. Sociologija Vol. 19, No. 4 (2008): 102-111.Google Scholar

  • 12. Genys, Dainius, and Eigintas Aleksandravičius. “Bendro vardiklio beieškant - Lietuvos energetinio saugumo orientyrai ekspertiniu požiūriu” (“Searching for Common Denominator - The Guidlines of Lithuania’s Energy Security in Expert Point of View”). Politikos mokslų almanachas No. 12 (2012): 63-84.Google Scholar

  • 13. Janeliūnas, Tomas. “Lithuanian Energy Strategy and its Implications on Regional Cooperation”: 190-222. In: Andris Sprūds and Toms Rostoks, eds.Google Scholar

  • Energy: Pulling the Baltic Sea Region together or apart? Riga: Zinatne, 2009.Google Scholar

  • 14. Lyotard, J. Francois. Postmodernus būvis (Postmodern State). Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1993.Google Scholar

  • 15. Molis, Arūnas. Lietuvos geoenergetinio saugumo politikos gairės ir Lietuvosgeoenergetinių alternatyvų paieškos trumpuoju ir vidutiniu laikotarpiu (TheGuidelines of Lithuanian Geo-Energetic Security and Search for LithuanianGeo-Energetic Alternatives in Short-term and Medium Periods). Vilnius: Centre for Strategic Studies, 2006.Google Scholar

  • 16. Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania. The National EnergyIndependence Strategy. Vilnius, 2012.Google Scholar

  • 17. Telešienė, Audronė. “Kritiškosios diskurso analizės metodologinių principų taikymas sociologiniuose tyrimuose” (“Application of the Methodological Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis to Sociological Research”). Filosofija.Google Scholar

  • Sociologija Vol. 16, No. 2 (2005): 1-6.Google Scholar

  • 18. Van Dijk, Teun A. Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.Google Scholar

  • 19. Van Dijk, Teun A. “Discourse, Ideology and Context.” Paper for the 7th International Conference of Pragmatics. Budapest (July 2000). FoliaLinguistica XXX/1-2 (2001): 11-40. Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2013-09-05

Published in Print: 2013-06-01


Citation Information: Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, ISSN (Print) 2029-0454, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2013-0007.

Export Citation

This content is open access.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in