Caio Castelliano, Peter Grajzl, A. Alves, Eduardo Watanabe
{"title":"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","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":"48 1","pages":"50 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"50 - 77\"},\"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}","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}
Adjudication Forums, Specialization, and Case Duration: Evidence from Brazilian Federal Courts
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.
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.