Who Hangs Whom for What? The Death Penalty in Japan

IF 3 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW Journal of Legal Analysis Pub Date : 2012-12-01 DOI:10.1093/JLA/LAS013
J. Ramseyer
{"title":"Who Hangs Whom for What? The Death Penalty in Japan","authors":"J. Ramseyer","doi":"10.1093/JLA/LAS013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Japanese judges are least likely to hang a defendant for murder if they graduated from a high-status university, passed the bar-exam-equivalent quickly, or enjoy a fast-track career within the courts. “Panel composition effects” and other measures of collegiality seem unrelated to sentencing patterns. To explore the effect of judicial panel composition beyond the more-often-studied world of politically prominent cases, I examine its impact on criminal sentencing. More specifically, I examine the possible determinants of the propensity of Japanese judges to sentence guilty defendants to death. Toward this end, I collect all opinions published since 1980 in murder cases—about 200 cases. Because each case involves a three-judge panel but some judges write multiple opinions, these cases involve about 440 judges. Within this group, the most elite judges are least likely to impose the death penalty. Measures of possible collegiality—how long judges have served on a court together, graduation from a common university, closeness in age—have no observable impact. The presence of potential “whistle-blower” judges also appears not to matter.","PeriodicalId":45189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Analysis","volume":"43 1","pages":"365-405"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JLA/LAS013","RegionNum":1,"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: 2

Abstract

Japanese judges are least likely to hang a defendant for murder if they graduated from a high-status university, passed the bar-exam-equivalent quickly, or enjoy a fast-track career within the courts. “Panel composition effects” and other measures of collegiality seem unrelated to sentencing patterns. To explore the effect of judicial panel composition beyond the more-often-studied world of politically prominent cases, I examine its impact on criminal sentencing. More specifically, I examine the possible determinants of the propensity of Japanese judges to sentence guilty defendants to death. Toward this end, I collect all opinions published since 1980 in murder cases—about 200 cases. Because each case involves a three-judge panel but some judges write multiple opinions, these cases involve about 440 judges. Within this group, the most elite judges are least likely to impose the death penalty. Measures of possible collegiality—how long judges have served on a court together, graduation from a common university, closeness in age—have no observable impact. The presence of potential “whistle-blower” judges also appears not to matter.
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
谁因为什么而绞死谁?日本的死刑
如果被告毕业于名牌大学,很快通过了律师资格考试,或者在法庭上有快速发展的事业,那么日本法官最不可能以谋杀罪绞死被告。“陪审团组成效应”和其他衡量同僚合作的标准似乎与量刑模式无关。为了探索司法小组组成的影响,超越了更经常研究的政治突出案件的世界,我研究了它对刑事判决的影响。更具体地说,我研究了日本法官倾向于判处有罪被告死刑的可能决定因素。为此,我收集了自1980年以来发表的所有关于谋杀案件的意见——大约有200起。由于每个案件都由三名法官组成,但有些法官会撰写多个意见,因此这些案件涉及大约440名法官。在这个群体中,最精英的法官最不可能判处死刑。衡量可能的合议制——法官在同一法庭任职的时间长短、毕业于同一所大学、年龄相近——没有明显的影响。潜在的“告密者”法官的存在似乎也无关紧要。
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
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Limits of Formalism in the Separation of Powers Putting Freedom of Contract in its Place Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models How Election Rules Affect Who Wins Remote Work and City Decline: Lessons From the Garment District
×
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