Indigeneity and the judicial decision to imprison : a study of Western Australia’s higher courts

Internationally, sentencing research has largely neglected the impact of Indigeneity on sentencing outcomes. Using data from Western Australia’s higher courts for the years 2003–05, we investigate the direct and interactive effects of Indigenous status on the judicial decision to imprison. Unlike prior research on race/ethnicity in which minority offenders are often found to be more harshly treated by sentencing courts, we find that Indigenous status has no direct effect on the decision to imprison,after adjusting for other sentencing factors (especially past and current criminality).However, there are sub-group differences: Indigenous males are more likely to receive a prison sentence compared to non-Indigenous females. We draw on the focal concerns perspective of judicial decision making in interpreting our findings.

New Governance and the EU Courts : The Experimentalist Architecture of Judicial Decision-Making

The dissertation examines the role of the EU courts in new governance. New governance has raised unprecedented interest in the EU in recent years. This is manifested in a plethora of instruments and actors at various levels that challenge more traditional forms of command-and-control regulation. New governance and political experimentation more generally is thought to sap the ability of the EU judiciary to monitor and review these experiments. The exclusion of the courts is then seen to add to the legitimacy problem of new governance. The starting point of this dissertation is the observation that the marginalised role of the courts is based on theoretical and empirical assumptions which invite scrutiny. The theoretical framework of the dissertation is deliberative democracy and democratic experimentalism. The analysis of deliberative democracy is sustained by an attempt to apply theoretical concepts to three distinctive examples of governance in the EU. These are the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, the European Chemicals Agency, and the Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive. The case studies show numerous disincentives and barriers to judicial review. Among these are questions of the role of courts in shaping governance frameworks, the reviewability of science-based measures, the standing of individuals before the courts, and the justiciability of soft law. The dissertation analyses the conditions of judicial review in each governance environment and proposes improvements. From a more theoretical standpoint it could be said that each case study presents a governance regime which builds on legislation that lays out major (guide)lines but leaves details to be filled out at a later stage. Specification of detailed standards takes place through collaborative networks comprising members from national administrations, NGOs, and the Commission. Viewed this way, deliberative problem-solving is needed to bring people together to clarify, elaborate, and revise largely abstract and general norms in order to resolve concrete and specific problems and to make law applicable and enforceable. The dissertation draws attention to the potential of peer review included there and its profound consequences for judicial accountability structures. It is argued that without this kind of ongoing and dynamic peer review of accountability in governance frameworks, judicial review of new governance is difficult and in some cases impossible. This claim has implications for how we understand the concept of soft law, the role of the courts, participation rights, and the legitimacy of governance measures more generally. The experimentalist architecture of judicial decision-making relies upon a wide variety of actors to provide conditions for legitimate and efficient review.

Constitutional law. Being a collection of points arising upon the Constitution and jurisprudence of the United States, which have been settled, by judicial decision and practice.

Mode of access: Internet.

Decision-making in a death investigation: Emotions, families and the coroner

The role of the coroner in common law countries such as Australia, England, Canada and New Zealand is to preside over death investigations where there is uncertainty as to the manner of death, a need to identify the deceased, a death of unknown cause, or a violent or unnatural death. The vast majority of these deaths are not suspicious and thus require coroners to engage with grieving families who have been thrust into a legal process through the misfortune of a loved one's sudden or unexpected death. In this research, 10 experienced coroners discussed how they negotiated the grief and trauma evident in a death investigation. In doing so, they articulated two distinct ways in which legal officers engaged with emotions, which are also evident in the literature. The first engages the script of judicial dispassion, articulating a hierarchical relationship between reason and emotion, while the second introduces an ethic of care via the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence, and thus offers a challenge to the role of emotion in the personae of the professional judicial officer. By using Hochschild's work on the sociology of emotions, this article discusses the various ways in which coroners manage the emotion of a death investigation through emotion work. While emotional distance may be an understandable response by coroners to the grief and trauma experienced by families and directed at cleaner coronial decision-making, the article concludes that coroners may be better served by offering emotions such as sympathy, consideration and compassion directly to the family in those situations where families are struggling to accept, or are resistant to, coroners' decisions.

O pragmatismo antiteórico de Richard A. Posner e as respostas da teoria moral para a decisão judicial

Este trabalho apresenta uma análise crítica à forma de se abordar casos jurídicos e proferir decisões judiciais denominada abordagem judicial pragmática, disseminada pelo magistrado e professor norte-americano Richard A. Posner. O objetivo é explicitar suas principais características e contornos, bem como sua repulsa pela teorização abstrata e pelos debates e argumentos morais na decisão judicial. A partir disso, pretende-se refutar parte dessa abordagem pragmática, por meio de argumentos levantados por filósofos morais e profissionais do direito a saber: Ronald Dworkin, Charles Fried, Anthony Kronman, John T. Noonan Jr e Martha C. Nussbaum - em defesa de uma abordagem que prega a inevitável utilização do raciocínio teórico, assim como a argumentação e reflexão moral na resolução de casos difíceis relacionados ao direito. Também será destacado como a repulsa pragmática pela teoria moral e abstrata é incompatível com a conjuntura justeórica contemporânea e como a análise de alguns casos difíceis expõe a falibilidade, ainda que parcial, desse estilo de abordagem pregado por Posner.

Motivação e discricionariedade: as razões de decidir e o contraditório como elementos legitimadores da atuação judicial

O objetivo do presente trabalho é demonstrar que uma releitura dos princípios do contraditório e do dever de motivar as decisões judiciais, sob a ótica da maior participação dos jurisdicionados, tem o condão de alcançar a esperada legitimidade democrática da atuação judicial. Para tanto, antes de adentrar ao cerne da questão, buscou-se analisar ordenamentos de tradições jurídicas distintas, civil law e common law, a fim de delinear as perspectivas que referidos sistemas enxergavam o dever de motivar a decisão judicial. O estudo convergiu para o momento atual do direito, iniciado na segunda metade do séc. XX com o movimento de constitucionalização e, consequentemente, judicialização dos direitos. Uma das maiores críticas ao momento vivido é o amplo espaço interpretativo do juiz, abrindo as portas para a discricionariedade, o que foi combatido e rechaçado tendo como parâmetro as origens do instituto. Passado referido ponto, discutiu-se sobre as evoluções e novas tendências que circundam os princípios do contraditório e do dever de motivar, cuja finalidade foi demonstrar a estreita conexão entre as normas. Conclusão inexorável foi que ambos compõem a base das garantias processuais que legitimam a atuação judicial democrática. Por fim, procurou-se tecer alguns comentários sobre os equívocos cometidos na interpretação do princípio do convencimento judicial, e como essa perspectiva pode ser alterada com as diretivas presentes no projeto do novo Código de Processo Civil, haja vista que suas previsões abraçam boa parte das ideias debatidas no presente trabalho.

Human Dignity and judicial Interpretation of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights was pivotal in popularizing the use of 'dignity' or 'human dignity' in human rights discourse. This article argues that the use of 'dignity', beyond a basic minimum core, does not provide a universalistic, principled basis for judicial decision-making in the human rights context, in the sense that there is little common understanding of what dignity requires substantively within or across jurisdictions. The meaning of dignity is therefore context-specific, varying significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and (often) over time within particular jurisdictions. Indeed, instead of providing a basis for principled decision-making, dignity seems open to significant judicial manipulation. increasing rather than decreasing judicial discretion. That is one of its significant attractions to both judges and litigators alike. Dignity provides a convenient language for the adoption of substantive interpretations of human rights guarantees which appear to be intentionally, not just coincidentally. highly contingent on local circumstances. Despite that, however, I argue that the concept of 'human dignity' plays an important role in the development of human rights adjudication, not in providing an agreed content to human rights but in contributing to particular methods of human rights interpretation and adjudication.

Parâmetros de concretização judicial do direito fundamental à saúde no fornecimento de medicamentos

In Brazil, social rights have always been considered secondary legal categories, whose implementation could wait for the pending of political decisions. At the end of the Second World War, International Law emphasizes the protection of human beings, raising his dignity as a legal pillar of the legal orders and one of the main foundations of Constitutions. At the post-positivism Constitutionalism, the realization of social rights receives special attention with the assumption of supremacy and normativity of the Constitutions, while the judiciary participates in the realization of democracy, not only as applicator of laws, but also as the guardian of constitutionality of the acts and administrative omissions, creatively contributing to the constitutional achievement, filling gaps and normative state omissions. In this aspect, the supply of medicines, whose costs can not be supported by the individual, keep a close connection with the right to life, health and dignity of the human being, as the subject of numerous lawsuits directed against the Public Administration. Such phenomenon has caused intense debate regarding judicial activism and legitimacy of these decisions, particularly on the need to define what are the limits and possibilities considering the principle of separation of powers and the principle of reserve of the possible; bieng this the problematic developed in this research. Thus, this research aims to verify the legitimacy of judicial decisions that determines to the Public Administration the compulsory providing of medicine to those who can not afford the cost of their treatment, as well as, contribute to the dogmatic constructions of parameters to be observed by judicial interference. Regarding the methodology, this research has an investigative and descriptive caracter and an theoretical approach based on bibliographical data collection (judicial and doutrine decisions) that received qualitative treatment and dialectical approach. As a result, it is known that the judicial decision that determines the supply of medicines to those individuals who can not afford them with their own resources is legitimate and complies with the democratic principle, not violating the principle of separation of powers and the reserve of the possible, since the judicial decison is not stripped with an uniform and reasonable criteria, failing to contain high burden of subjectivism and witch signifies a possible exacerbation of functions by the judiciary, suffering, in this case, of requirement of legal certainty. It is concluded that the Court decision that determines the government the providing of medicine to those who can not afford the cost of treatment should be based on parameters such as: the protection of human dignity and the minimum existencial principle, the inafastable jurisdiction principle; compliance critique of the possible reserve principle; subsidiarity of judicial intervention; proportionality (quantitative and qualitative) in the content of the decision; the questioning about the reasons for non-delivery of the drug through administrative via; and, finally, the attention not to turn the judiciary into a mere production factor of the pharmaceutical industry, contributing to the cartelization of the right to health

Legal Change: Integrating Selective Litigation, Judicial Preferences, and Precedent

The claim that the common law displays an economic logic is a centerpiece of the positive economic theory of law. A key question in this literature is whether this outcome is due to the conscious efforts of judges, or the result of invisible hand processes. This paper develops a model in which to two effects combine to determine the direction of legal change. The main conclusions are, first, that judicial bias can prevent the law from evolving toward efficiency if the fraction of judges biased against the efficient rule is large enough; and second, that precedent affects the rate of legal change but not its direction.