Identifying Judicial Empathy: Does Having Daughters Cause Judges to Rule for Womens Issues?
نویسنده
چکیده
In this article, we consider whether personal relationships can affect the way that judges decide cases. To do so, we leverage the natural experiment of a child’s gender to identify the effect of having daughters on the votes of judges. Using new data on the family lives of U.S. Courts of Appeals judges, we find that, conditional on the number of children a judge has, judges with daughters consistently vote in a more feminist fashion on gender issues than judges who have only sons. This result survives a number of robustness tests and appears to be driven primarily by Republican judges. More broadly, this result demonstrates that personal experiences influence how judges make decisions, and this is the first article to show that empathy may indeed be a component in how judges decide cases.
منابع مشابه
Democracy and Judicial Review: Are They Really Incompatible?
This article shows that judicial review has a democratic justification, although it is not necessary for democratic government and its virtues are controversial and often speculative. Against critics like Waldron and Bellamy, it shows that judges, no less than legislators, can embody democratic forms of representation, accountability and participation. Hence, judicial review is not undemocratic...
متن کاملJudicial integrity: the accountability gap and the Bangalore Principles
The judiciary needs to be independent of outside influence, particularly from political and economic powers. But judicial independence does not mean that judges and court officials should have free rein to behave as they please. Indeed, judicial independence is founded on public trust, and to maintain it, judges must uphold the highest standards of integrity. This chapter focuses on the account...
متن کاملIndependent judicial research in the Daubert age.
The Supreme Court's Daubert trilogy places judges in the unenviable position of assessing the reliability of often unfamiliar and complex scientific expert testimony. Over the past decade, scholars have therefore explored various ways of helping judges with their new gatekeeping responsibilities. Unfortunately, the two dominant approaches, which focus on doctrinal tests and external assistance ...
متن کاملRationality, Legitimacy, & The Law
American legal realism was committed to examining legal reasoning in terms of the actual experiences of judges. Because the realist project sought to use social science tools to examine human nature, the contemporary rise of cognitive neuroscience provides an occasion for reexamining legal realism’s foundational critique of the law. Realism’s attempt to examine “the actual facts of judicial beh...
متن کاملتعدد اقرار در جرایم علیه عفت عمومی
Detection of the truth has been ever one of the important concerns of scientists in the sciences related to judicial issues. In penal problems, to detect the truth, the evidences are resorted which are referred to as proof evidences. These evidences or in other word their queen is confession. The confession as the queen of evidences has special position in Islamic judicial context. In penal l...
متن کامل