法官性别对亲密伴侣暴力案件判决的影响

IF 1.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Joan Josep Vallbé, Carmen Ramírez-Folch
{"title":"法官性别对亲密伴侣暴力案件判决的影响","authors":"Joan Josep Vallbé,&nbsp;Carmen Ramírez-Folch","doi":"10.1111/jels.12361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article aims at disentangling the effect of judges' gender, experience, and caseload in the assignment of restraining orders in IPV cases. Previous literature has independently looked at the effect of gender on judicial decisions and found that it becomes relevant in gender-related cases. However, we find that such effects are better understood in interaction with other contextual factors such as the experience of judges and the amount of work they face, because these determine the levels of uncertainty and information costs surrounding decisions. For our empirical analysis, we use data from on-duty pretrial court decisions on restraining orders in Spain between 2010 and 2018. We find conditional effects of gender depending on experience and workload: more experienced female judges are more likely to grant protection orders than their male counterparts when the amount of caseload is high. These findings are relevant to understand the mechanisms behind judicial inequality under civil law systems, where judges' attributes tend to be unobservable by institutional design.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"20 3","pages":"641-668"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.12361","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of judges' gender on decisions regarding intimate-partner violence\",\"authors\":\"Joan Josep Vallbé,&nbsp;Carmen Ramírez-Folch\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jels.12361\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This article aims at disentangling the effect of judges' gender, experience, and caseload in the assignment of restraining orders in IPV cases. Previous literature has independently looked at the effect of gender on judicial decisions and found that it becomes relevant in gender-related cases. However, we find that such effects are better understood in interaction with other contextual factors such as the experience of judges and the amount of work they face, because these determine the levels of uncertainty and information costs surrounding decisions. For our empirical analysis, we use data from on-duty pretrial court decisions on restraining orders in Spain between 2010 and 2018. We find conditional effects of gender depending on experience and workload: more experienced female judges are more likely to grant protection orders than their male counterparts when the amount of caseload is high. These findings are relevant to understand the mechanisms behind judicial inequality under civil law systems, where judges' attributes tend to be unobservable by institutional design.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47187,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"20 3\",\"pages\":\"641-668\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.12361\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12361\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12361","RegionNum":2,"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: 0

摘要

本文旨在揭示法官的性别、经验和案件数量对IPV案件中限制令分配的影响。以前的文献已经独立地研究了性别对司法判决的影响,并发现它在与性别有关的案件中变得相关。然而,我们发现,这种影响在与其他背景因素(如法官的经验和他们面临的工作量)的相互作用中得到更好的理解,因为这些因素决定了围绕决策的不确定性和信息成本的水平。为了进行实证分析,我们使用了2010年至2018年西班牙当值的审前法院对限制令的判决数据。我们发现性别的条件效应取决于经验和工作量:当案件数量高时,经验更丰富的女法官比男法官更有可能颁发保护令。这些发现与理解大陆法系下司法不平等背后的机制有关,在大陆法系下,法官的属性往往无法被制度设计观察到。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The effect of judges' gender on decisions regarding intimate-partner violence

The effect of judges' gender on decisions regarding intimate-partner violence

This article aims at disentangling the effect of judges' gender, experience, and caseload in the assignment of restraining orders in IPV cases. Previous literature has independently looked at the effect of gender on judicial decisions and found that it becomes relevant in gender-related cases. However, we find that such effects are better understood in interaction with other contextual factors such as the experience of judges and the amount of work they face, because these determine the levels of uncertainty and information costs surrounding decisions. For our empirical analysis, we use data from on-duty pretrial court decisions on restraining orders in Spain between 2010 and 2018. We find conditional effects of gender depending on experience and workload: more experienced female judges are more likely to grant protection orders than their male counterparts when the amount of caseload is high. These findings are relevant to understand the mechanisms behind judicial inequality under civil law systems, where judges' attributes tend to be unobservable by institutional design.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
34
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信