“They don't let us speak”: Gender, collegiality, and interruptions in deliberations in the Brazilian Supreme Court

IF 1.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2024-01-13 DOI:10.1111/jels.12379
Diego Werneck Arguelhes, Juliana Cesario Alvim, Rafaela Nogueira, Henrique Wang
{"title":"“They don't let us speak”: Gender, collegiality, and interruptions in deliberations in the Brazilian Supreme Court","authors":"Diego Werneck Arguelhes,&nbsp;Juliana Cesario Alvim,&nbsp;Rafaela Nogueira,&nbsp;Henrique Wang","doi":"10.1111/jels.12379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this paper, we examine a database containing court rulings and debates (<i>acórdãos</i>) of the Brazilian Supreme Court (“STF”) spanning from 1999 to 2018. Our objective is to analyze the relationship between gender and how judges behave when interacting with each other. Specifically, we investigate whether female judges are more likely to be interrupted by their colleagues during oral debates. Our data are built on real-time public interactions between the judges, as recorded in the Court's transcripts. The results show that female STF judges are interrupted more often than their male counterparts. While male judges display no specific effects, all three female judges in our data display a very significant and positive probability of being interrupted, as compared to their male colleagues participating in the same deliberations. These results show that, even in institutions designed to protect rights of political minorities, including women, gender dynamics, stereotypes and hierarchies can affect the functioning of courts in visible ways, with potential impacts on the rest of the judiciary and the legal profession. They also suggest that merely increasing the number of female judges, without addressing underlying gender dynamics and procedural rules in the judicial decision-making process, is insufficient to tackle the disadvantages women face within those institutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"21 1","pages":"174-207"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12379","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, we examine a database containing court rulings and debates (acórdãos) of the Brazilian Supreme Court (“STF”) spanning from 1999 to 2018. Our objective is to analyze the relationship between gender and how judges behave when interacting with each other. Specifically, we investigate whether female judges are more likely to be interrupted by their colleagues during oral debates. Our data are built on real-time public interactions between the judges, as recorded in the Court's transcripts. The results show that female STF judges are interrupted more often than their male counterparts. While male judges display no specific effects, all three female judges in our data display a very significant and positive probability of being interrupted, as compared to their male colleagues participating in the same deliberations. These results show that, even in institutions designed to protect rights of political minorities, including women, gender dynamics, stereotypes and hierarchies can affect the functioning of courts in visible ways, with potential impacts on the rest of the judiciary and the legal profession. They also suggest that merely increasing the number of female judges, without addressing underlying gender dynamics and procedural rules in the judicial decision-making process, is insufficient to tackle the disadvantages women face within those institutions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"他们不让我们发言":巴西最高法院审议中的性别、合议和中断
在本文中,我们研究了一个包含巴西最高法院("STF")从 1999 年到 2018 年的法院判决和辩论(acórdãos)的数据库。我们的目标是分析性别与法官在互动时的行为方式之间的关系。具体来说,我们研究女法官在口头辩论时是否更容易被同事打断。我们的数据基于法院记录誊本中记录的法官之间的实时公开互动。结果显示,STF 的女法官比男法官更常被打断。虽然男性法官没有表现出特定的影响,但我们数据中的所有三位女法官与参加相同评议的男性同事相比,被打断的概率都非常显著且呈正数。这些结果表明,即使在旨在保护包括女性在内的政治少数群体权利的机构中,性别动态、陈规定型观念和等级制度也会以明显的方式影响法院的运作,并对司法机构的其他部门和法律界产生潜在影响。他们还建议,仅仅增加女法官的人数,而不解决司法决策过程中潜在的性别动态和程序规则,不足以解决妇女在这些机构中面临的不利处境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Market versus policy responses to novel occupational risks Network analysis of lawyer referral markets: Evidence from Indiana Emotional bargaining after litigation: An experimental study of the Coase theorem Automating Abercrombie: Machine-learning trademark distinctiveness
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1