Adjudication Forums, Specialization, and Case Duration: Evidence from Brazilian Federal Courts

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 Social Sciences Justice System Journal Pub Date : 2020-12-11 DOI:10.1080/0098261X.2020.1854905
Caio Castelliano, Peter Grajzl, A. Alves, Eduardo Watanabe
{"title":"Adjudication Forums, Specialization, and Case Duration: Evidence from Brazilian Federal Courts","authors":"Caio Castelliano, Peter Grajzl, A. Alves, Eduardo Watanabe","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2020.1854905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Exploring a large-scale case-level dataset from Brazilian federal courts, we offer empirical insight into the implications of the organizational structure and jurisdictional specialization of in-court adjudication forums for case duration, a measure of tribunal efficacy. Federal trial courts in Brazil are organized into offices, with each office further divided into a titled and a substitute judgeship. Random case assignment between judgeships within the offices and between same-jurisdiction offices within the courts facilitates the estimation of causal effects of different adjudicatory forums on case duration. Titled judgeships on average exhibit a modest efficacy advantage over substitute judgeships, although substitute judgeships are more efficacious than titled judgeships in some of the court offices. Case duration differences between same-jurisdiction offices can be considerable, an indication of inequities in recourse to justice. Estimates exploiting variation in court offices' jurisdictional specialization suggest that office specialization reduces case duration only if offices are either specialized with respect to procedure or fully specialized with respect to issue, or both. Partial specialization in issue does not exhibit an effect on case duration. Because specialization of in-court adjudication forums is a common organizational feature of many justice systems worldwide, our findings are relevant beyond Brazilian borders.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Justice System Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2020.1854905","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract Exploring a large-scale case-level dataset from Brazilian federal courts, we offer empirical insight into the implications of the organizational structure and jurisdictional specialization of in-court adjudication forums for case duration, a measure of tribunal efficacy. Federal trial courts in Brazil are organized into offices, with each office further divided into a titled and a substitute judgeship. Random case assignment between judgeships within the offices and between same-jurisdiction offices within the courts facilitates the estimation of causal effects of different adjudicatory forums on case duration. Titled judgeships on average exhibit a modest efficacy advantage over substitute judgeships, although substitute judgeships are more efficacious than titled judgeships in some of the court offices. Case duration differences between same-jurisdiction offices can be considerable, an indication of inequities in recourse to justice. Estimates exploiting variation in court offices' jurisdictional specialization suggest that office specialization reduces case duration only if offices are either specialized with respect to procedure or fully specialized with respect to issue, or both. Partial specialization in issue does not exhibit an effect on case duration. Because specialization of in-court adjudication forums is a common organizational feature of many justice systems worldwide, our findings are relevant beyond Brazilian borders.
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
裁决论坛、专业化和案件持续时间:来自巴西联邦法院的证据
摘要通过对巴西联邦法院的大规模案件级数据集的研究,我们对庭内审判论坛的组织结构和管辖权专业化对案件持续时间(法庭效力的衡量标准)的影响提供了实证见解。巴西的联邦初审法院分为办公室,每个办公室又分为主审法官和代审法官。办事处内法官之间和法院内同一管辖权办事处之间的随机案件分配有助于估计不同审判论坛对案件持续时间的因果影响。平均而言,有头衔的法官比替代法官表现出适度的效力优势,尽管在某些法院办公室,替代法官比有头衔的法官更有效。同一管辖权办事处之间的案件持续时间差异可能相当大,这表明诉诸司法方面存在不平等。利用法院办公室管辖权专业化差异的估计表明,只有当办公室在程序方面专业化或在问题方面完全专业化,或两者兼而有之时,办公室专业化才能减少案件持续时间。问题的部分专门化对案件持续时间没有影响。由于庭内审判论坛的专业化是全球许多司法系统的共同组织特征,因此我们的研究结果具有巴西境外的相关性。
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
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
14.30%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: The Justice System Journal is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes original research articles on all aspects of law, courts, court administration, judicial behavior, and the impact of all of these on public and social policy. Open as to methodological approaches, The Justice System Journal aims to use the latest in advanced social science research and analysis to bridge the gap between practicing and academic law, courts and politics communities. The Justice System Journal invites submission of original articles and research notes that are likely to be of interest to scholars and practitioners in the field of law, courts, and judicial administration, broadly defined. Articles may draw on a variety of research approaches in the social sciences. The journal does not publish articles devoted to extended analysis of legal doctrine such as a law review might publish, although short manuscripts analyzing cases or legal issues are welcome and will be considered for the Legal Notes section. The Justice System Journal was created in 1974 by the Institute for Court Management and is published under the auspices of the National Center for State Courts. The Justice System Journal features peer-reviewed research articles as well as reviews of important books in law and courts, and analytical research notes on some of the leading cases from state and federal courts. The journal periodically produces special issues that provide analysis of fundamental and timely issues on law and courts from both national and international perspectives.
期刊最新文献
State Supreme Court Responsiveness to Court Curbing: Examining the Use of Judicial Review The Effects of Jurors’ Initial Views of Jury Service on Predeliberation Preferences for Prosecution or Defense Emerging Hardball Confirmation Tactics and Public Support for the U.S. Supreme Court A War of Words Over Abortion: The Legal-Framing Contest Over the Undue Burden Standard Letter from the Editor
×
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