A Social Movement Model for Judicial Behavior: Evidence from Brazil’s Anti-Corruption Movements

IF 3.3 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Social Forces Pub Date : 2024-04-18 DOI:10.1093/sf/soae065
Luiz Vilaça
{"title":"A Social Movement Model for Judicial Behavior: Evidence from Brazil’s Anti-Corruption Movements","authors":"Luiz Vilaça","doi":"10.1093/sf/soae065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While studies show that public opinion and educational workshops promoted by nonprofits affect judicial behavior, it remains unclear whether and how social movements affect judges’ decision-making through disruptive actions. I develop a framework to explain the conditions under which and the mechanisms through which social movement mobilization affects the decision-making of judges, drawing on a mixed-methods study of anti-corruption protests in Brazil. I constructed an original dataset of decisions of corruption cases at the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (2003–2016). Results showed that actions that target judicial cases (case-focused protests)—but not protests that simply put the issue on the public agenda—are associated with higher chances that judges will decide in ways that are aligned with the movements’ demands. I supplemented this data with a qualitative analysis of appeals on two investigations of similar crimes and some of the same defendants but with different outcomes in appellate courts: Sandcastle (Castelo de Areia) and Car Wash (Lava Jato). Drawing on 110 interviews with prosecutors and judges and document analysis of criminal charges and judicial decisions, I show that case-focused protests affect judicial behavior through two mechanisms: by threatening the personal reputation of judges and the legitimacy of courts.","PeriodicalId":48400,"journal":{"name":"Social Forces","volume":"110 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Forces","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soae065","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While studies show that public opinion and educational workshops promoted by nonprofits affect judicial behavior, it remains unclear whether and how social movements affect judges’ decision-making through disruptive actions. I develop a framework to explain the conditions under which and the mechanisms through which social movement mobilization affects the decision-making of judges, drawing on a mixed-methods study of anti-corruption protests in Brazil. I constructed an original dataset of decisions of corruption cases at the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (2003–2016). Results showed that actions that target judicial cases (case-focused protests)—but not protests that simply put the issue on the public agenda—are associated with higher chances that judges will decide in ways that are aligned with the movements’ demands. I supplemented this data with a qualitative analysis of appeals on two investigations of similar crimes and some of the same defendants but with different outcomes in appellate courts: Sandcastle (Castelo de Areia) and Car Wash (Lava Jato). Drawing on 110 interviews with prosecutors and judges and document analysis of criminal charges and judicial decisions, I show that case-focused protests affect judicial behavior through two mechanisms: by threatening the personal reputation of judges and the legitimacy of courts.
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
司法行为的社会运动模式:巴西反腐败运动的证据
虽然研究表明,非营利组织推动的舆论和教育研讨会会影响司法行为,但社会运动是否以及如何通过破坏性行动影响法官的决策仍不清楚。我借鉴对巴西反腐败抗议活动的混合方法研究,建立了一个框架来解释社会运动动员影响法官决策的条件和机制。我构建了巴西高等法院腐败案件判决的原始数据集(2003-2016 年)。结果显示,以司法案件为目标的行动(以案件为重点的抗议),而非仅仅将该问题提上公共议程的抗议,与法官以符合运动要求的方式做出判决的可能性相关联。作为对上述数据的补充,我还对两起上诉案件的上诉情况进行了定性分析,这两起案件涉及类似的犯罪和一些相同的被告,但上诉法院的判决结果却不同:沙堡案(Castelo de Areia)和洗车案(Lava Jato)。通过对检察官和法官的 110 次访谈,以及对刑事指控和司法判决的文件分析,我发现以案件为中心的抗议会通过两种机制影响司法行为:威胁法官的个人声誉和法院的合法性。
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
Social Forces
Social Forces SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
123
期刊介绍: Established in 1922, Social Forces is recognized as a global leader among social research journals. Social Forces publishes articles of interest to a general social science audience and emphasizes cutting-edge sociological inquiry as well as explores realms the discipline shares with psychology, anthropology, political science, history, and economics. Social Forces is published by Oxford University Press in partnership with the Department of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
期刊最新文献
Entering the mainstream economy? Workplace segregation and immigrant assimilation Defenders of the status quo: energy protests and policy (in)action in Sweden A room of one’s own? The consequences of living density on individual well-being and social anomie Can fertility decline help explain gender pay convergence? Double standards in status ascriptions? The role of gender, behaviors, and social networks in status orders among adolescents
×
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