The Influence of Judicial Adjudicators on the Uncertainty of Judicial Decisions

Yueqin Chen; Zheng Zang

doi:doi:10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13

| Peer-Reviewed

The Influence of Judicial Adjudicators on the Uncertainty of Judicial Decisions

Yueqin Chen, Zheng Zang

Published in Humanities and Social Sciences (Volume 9, Issue 4)

Received: 25 June 2021 Accepted: 14 July 2021 Published: 22 July 2021

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

One of the fundamental values of the existence of justice is that it psychologically satisfies the human need for stability and certainty, so that imbalances of power and responsibility can be balanced and disputes can be settled. Judicial justice is reflected in the entire process of judicial adjudication, which is subject to uncertainty. Between the two major uncertainties of judicial adjudication - the uncertainty of the rules of judicial adjudication and the uncertainty of the decision of judicial adjudicators - this article focuses on the latter by classifying and analyzing two major aspects, namely internal and external factors. As individuals in the secular world, judicial adjudicators have different knowledge backgrounds, various levels of experience and competence, distinctive institutional deficiencies, and dissimilar motivations for their interests, so that they perceive and apply the rules of adjudication differently, resulting in different outcomes, thus leading to the uncertainty of judicial adjudication. It is of course necessary for judges to maintain their independence, enforce the law strictly and administer justice impartially, and contribute to the establishment of a society governed by the rule of law, but it is even more necessary for us to create conditions to enhance judicial independence and impartiality through judicial reform, so as to reduce the uncertainty of judicial decisions. This paper proposes some countermeasures on how to reduce the uncertainty of judicial adjudication.

Published in	Humanities and Social Sciences (Volume 9, Issue 4)
DOI	10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13
Page(s)	91-96
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Judicial Decisions, Uncertainty, Judicial Adjudicators, Judicial Independence

References

[1]	Pásara, Luis. 2006. Cómo Sentencian Los Jueces Del Distrito Federal en Materia Penal? México: Editorial de la Universidd Nacional Autónoma de México.
[2]	Pásara, Luis. 2000. Las Decisiones Judiciales en Guatemala. Managua: Minugua.
[3]	Weber, Max. 1967. El Político y el Científico. Madrid: Alianza.
[4]	Caselli, Francesco, and Máximo Morelli. 2000. “Bad politicians” Discussion Paper 134. Institute for Empirical Macroeconomics. Federal Reserve Bank from Minneapolis.
[5]	Ribeiro, Gerardo T. 2003. Teoría de la Argumentación Jurídica. México: Universidad Iberoamericana.
[6]	Atienza, Manuel. 1997. Las Razones Del Derecho. Teorías de la Argumentación Jurídica. Madrid: Centro deEstudios Políticos y Constitucionales.
[7]	Atienza, Manuel. 1994. “Las razones del Derecho. Sobre la justificación de las decisiones judiciales” Isonomía: Revista de Teoría y Filosofía Del Derecho 1: 52–69. URL: http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/nd/ark:/59851/bmcm61w0.
[8]	Alexy, Robert. 1978/2010. Teoría de la Argumentación Jurídica: La Teoría Del Discurso Racional Como Teoría de la Fundamentación Jurídica. Lima: Palestra Editores.
[9]	David, Rohde, and Harold Spaeth. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco, C. A: Freeman.
[10]	Taipale J. Judges’ socio-technical review of contested expertise. Social Studies of Science. 2019; 49 (3): 310-332. doi: 10.1177/0306312719854538
[11]	VP Ivanskiy. The concept of judge's impartiality in administering justice: basic conceptual approaches. Research Gate. 2021. doi: 10.24833/2073-8420-2021-1-58-26-34.
[12]	Alcántara, Manuel. 2012. El Oficio Del Politico. Madrid: Tecnos.
[13]	Martínez, Rosón, and María del Mar. 2008. “Legislative Careers: Does Quality Matter?” In Manuel Alcántara, ed. Politics and Politicians in Latin America. Boulder: Lynne Riemer.
[14]	Fiorina, Morris P. 1994. “Divided Government in American States: A Biproduct of Legislative Professionalism?” American Political Science Review 88 (02): 304–16. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2944705 doi: 10.2307/2944705.
[15]	Scartascini, Carlos, Pablo Spiller, Ernesto Stein, and Mariano Tommasi, eds. 2011. El Juego Político en Am? Erica.
[16]	Zuvanic, Laura, Mercedes Iacoviello, and Ana Laura RodrÍguez Gustá. 2010. “The Weakest Links: The Bureaucracy.
[17]	Travis Greene, Galit Shmueli, Jan Fell, Ching-Fu Lin, Mark L. Shope, Han-Wei Liu. The Hidden Inconsistencies Introduced by Predictive Algorithms in Judicial Decision Making. Tue, 1 Dec 2020 06: 12: 30 UTC. arXiv: 2012.00289 [cs. CY].
[18]	Kanischev V P, Palekha R R, Fedotova O A, et al. Judicial Ethics: Moral and Legal Aspects in the Context of a Scientifically Based Integrative Concept of Legal Understanding. 2020. doi: 10.37399/issn2072-909X.2020.10.54-61.
[19]	Hamilton, Jay, Madison, The Federalist Papers, The Commercial Press, 1980, p. 191.
[20]	Secondat C D, Montesquieu B D. Montesquieu: The Spirit of the Laws [J]. 1989.
[21]	Statement by Lord Brightman, in Hansard, HL cols 119-120, September 8, 2003.
[22]	Lord Cooke, The Law Lords: an Endangered Heritage, L. Q. R. 2003, 119 (Jan), 49-67.
[23]	Johnson B, Strother L. The Supreme Court's (Surprising?) Indifference to Public Opinion [J]. Political Research Quarterly, 2020, 74 (1).
[24]	David Isenberg, [J], 50, Personality and Soc Psych 1141 (1986). Quoted in Sun Xiaowan, "Public Opinion, Subject Matter and Information Symmetry in Public Cases" [J], Chinese Law Journal, Vol. 3, 2010.
[25]	Chen G, Economics S O. Which Weighs in Selection of Judges, Education Background or Profession: Evidence from the Improvement of Judicial Efficiency [J]. Journal of Guangdong University of Finance & Economics, 2019.
[26]	Posner R A. How Judges Think [M]. 2010.
[27]	http://policy.mofcom.gov.cnlenglish/flaw!lfetch.actionid=b226f749-58e1-4030-8b13-16964a48af44&pager.pageNo=6.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Yueqin Chen, Zheng Zang. (2021). The Influence of Judicial Adjudicators on the Uncertainty of Judicial Decisions. Humanities and Social Sciences, 9(4), 91-96. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Yueqin Chen; Zheng Zang. The Influence of Judicial Adjudicators on the Uncertainty of Judicial Decisions. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2021, 9(4), 91-96. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Yueqin Chen, Zheng Zang. The Influence of Judicial Adjudicators on the Uncertainty of Judicial Decisions. Humanit Soc Sci. 2021;9(4):91-96. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13,
  author = {Yueqin Chen and Zheng Zang},
  title = {The Influence of Judicial Adjudicators on the Uncertainty of Judicial Decisions},
  journal = {Humanities and Social Sciences},
  volume = {9},
  number = {4},
  pages = {91-96},
  doi = {10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.hss.20210904.13},
  abstract = {One of the fundamental values of the existence of justice is that it psychologically satisfies the human need for stability and certainty, so that imbalances of power and responsibility can be balanced and disputes can be settled. Judicial justice is reflected in the entire process of judicial adjudication, which is subject to uncertainty. Between the two major uncertainties of judicial adjudication - the uncertainty of the rules of judicial adjudication and the uncertainty of the decision of judicial adjudicators - this article focuses on the latter by classifying and analyzing two major aspects, namely internal and external factors. As individuals in the secular world, judicial adjudicators have different knowledge backgrounds, various levels of experience and competence, distinctive institutional deficiencies, and dissimilar motivations for their interests, so that they perceive and apply the rules of adjudication differently, resulting in different outcomes, thus leading to the uncertainty of judicial adjudication. It is of course necessary for judges to maintain their independence, enforce the law strictly and administer justice impartially, and contribute to the establishment of a society governed by the rule of law, but it is even more necessary for us to create conditions to enhance judicial independence and impartiality through judicial reform, so as to reduce the uncertainty of judicial decisions. This paper proposes some countermeasures on how to reduce the uncertainty of judicial adjudication.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - The Influence of Judicial Adjudicators on the Uncertainty of Judicial Decisions
AU  - Yueqin Chen
AU  - Zheng Zang
Y1  - 2021/07/22
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13
T2  - Humanities and Social Sciences
JF  - Humanities and Social Sciences
JO  - Humanities and Social Sciences
SP  - 91
EP  - 96
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-8184
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13
AB  - One of the fundamental values of the existence of justice is that it psychologically satisfies the human need for stability and certainty, so that imbalances of power and responsibility can be balanced and disputes can be settled. Judicial justice is reflected in the entire process of judicial adjudication, which is subject to uncertainty. Between the two major uncertainties of judicial adjudication - the uncertainty of the rules of judicial adjudication and the uncertainty of the decision of judicial adjudicators - this article focuses on the latter by classifying and analyzing two major aspects, namely internal and external factors. As individuals in the secular world, judicial adjudicators have different knowledge backgrounds, various levels of experience and competence, distinctive institutional deficiencies, and dissimilar motivations for their interests, so that they perceive and apply the rules of adjudication differently, resulting in different outcomes, thus leading to the uncertainty of judicial adjudication. It is of course necessary for judges to maintain their independence, enforce the law strictly and administer justice impartially, and contribute to the establishment of a society governed by the rule of law, but it is even more necessary for us to create conditions to enhance judicial independence and impartiality through judicial reform, so as to reduce the uncertainty of judicial decisions. This paper proposes some countermeasures on how to reduce the uncertainty of judicial adjudication.
VL  - 9
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Yueqin Chen

School of Journalism and Culture Communication, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan, China
Zheng Zang

School of Philosophy, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan, China

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Yueqin Chen, Zheng Zang. (2021). The Influence of Judicial Adjudicators on the Uncertainty of Judicial Decisions. Humanities and Social Sciences, 9(4), 91-96. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Yueqin Chen; Zheng Zang. The Influence of Judicial Adjudicators on the Uncertainty of Judicial Decisions. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2021, 9(4), 91-96. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Yueqin Chen, Zheng Zang. The Influence of Judicial Adjudicators on the Uncertainty of Judicial Decisions. Humanit Soc Sci. 2021;9(4):91-96. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13,
  author = {Yueqin Chen and Zheng Zang},
  title = {The Influence of Judicial Adjudicators on the Uncertainty of Judicial Decisions},
  journal = {Humanities and Social Sciences},
  volume = {9},
  number = {4},
  pages = {91-96},
  doi = {10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.hss.20210904.13},
  abstract = {One of the fundamental values of the existence of justice is that it psychologically satisfies the human need for stability and certainty, so that imbalances of power and responsibility can be balanced and disputes can be settled. Judicial justice is reflected in the entire process of judicial adjudication, which is subject to uncertainty. Between the two major uncertainties of judicial adjudication - the uncertainty of the rules of judicial adjudication and the uncertainty of the decision of judicial adjudicators - this article focuses on the latter by classifying and analyzing two major aspects, namely internal and external factors. As individuals in the secular world, judicial adjudicators have different knowledge backgrounds, various levels of experience and competence, distinctive institutional deficiencies, and dissimilar motivations for their interests, so that they perceive and apply the rules of adjudication differently, resulting in different outcomes, thus leading to the uncertainty of judicial adjudication. It is of course necessary for judges to maintain their independence, enforce the law strictly and administer justice impartially, and contribute to the establishment of a society governed by the rule of law, but it is even more necessary for us to create conditions to enhance judicial independence and impartiality through judicial reform, so as to reduce the uncertainty of judicial decisions. This paper proposes some countermeasures on how to reduce the uncertainty of judicial adjudication.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - The Influence of Judicial Adjudicators on the Uncertainty of Judicial Decisions
AU  - Yueqin Chen
AU  - Zheng Zang
Y1  - 2021/07/22
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13
T2  - Humanities and Social Sciences
JF  - Humanities and Social Sciences
JO  - Humanities and Social Sciences
SP  - 91
EP  - 96
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-8184
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20210904.13
AB  - One of the fundamental values of the existence of justice is that it psychologically satisfies the human need for stability and certainty, so that imbalances of power and responsibility can be balanced and disputes can be settled. Judicial justice is reflected in the entire process of judicial adjudication, which is subject to uncertainty. Between the two major uncertainties of judicial adjudication - the uncertainty of the rules of judicial adjudication and the uncertainty of the decision of judicial adjudicators - this article focuses on the latter by classifying and analyzing two major aspects, namely internal and external factors. As individuals in the secular world, judicial adjudicators have different knowledge backgrounds, various levels of experience and competence, distinctive institutional deficiencies, and dissimilar motivations for their interests, so that they perceive and apply the rules of adjudication differently, resulting in different outcomes, thus leading to the uncertainty of judicial adjudication. It is of course necessary for judges to maintain their independence, enforce the law strictly and administer justice impartially, and contribute to the establishment of a society governed by the rule of law, but it is even more necessary for us to create conditions to enhance judicial independence and impartiality through judicial reform, so as to reduce the uncertainty of judicial decisions. This paper proposes some countermeasures on how to reduce the uncertainty of judicial adjudication.
VL  - 9
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download