本文探讨了最高法院法官的个人政策观点如何影响其裁决，特别是聚焦于刑事案例。政治科学家发现某些法官对于特定类型的案件（如第四修正案相关）有规律性的投票倾向，或者投票模式可以由单一的理想点预测。尽管如此，法律学者对此持保留态度，认为法官行为的可预测性可能源于多种原因，包括解释方法和个人声誉。作者建议更深入地研究政策利益相似但解释争议不同的案件，以揭示真正起主导作用的因素。最高法院的刑事案提供了理想的案例集，因为它们涉及政府与被告之间的零和利益冲突，而这些案件通常占据法院三分之一的工作量，足以支持深入的统计分析和概括。
摘要：
Everyone suspects that Supreme Court justices' own views of policy play a part in their decisions, but the size and nature of the part is a matter of vague impression and frequent dispute. Do their preferences exert some pressure at the margin or are they better viewed as the mainsprings of decision? The latter claim, identified with legal realism, has been lent some support by political scientists who point out that some justices regularly vote for or against certain kinds of claims (for example, under the Fourth Amendment), or that votes in some areas are broadly predictable according to a single "ideal point" that tries to sum up each justice's preferences, or that justices who dissent from a decision often will not acquiesce to it in future cases. The reason these studies haven't made much of an impression in the legal academy probably is that lawyers and scholars sense many reasons why judges' behavior may follow predictable patterns, not all of them related to their own preferences. Some justices may have ideas about interpretation that happen to produce outcomes friendly to one side or another as byproducts; and a judge's public reputation as a "conservative" or "liberal," to which some of the political science work gives weight in explaining votes, likewise might arise because the judge's interpretive approach happens to yield results that conservatives or liberals like. A closer look is needed at judicial behavior in cases where the policy stakes are similar but the sources of interpretive dispute are different, the better to reveal which dominates which. The best set of such cases is found on the Supreme Court's criminal docket. Cases involving accused or convicted criminals raise all sorts of legal issues but can be seen to involve a common set of policy stakes: the courts have to referee disputes, often of a zero-sum character, over the advantages to be enjoyed by the government and the accused or convicted defendant. Of course one also can divide up criminal cases into narrower categories that may involve different policies; we will try it later. But the hypothesis that all such cases involve similar rough trade-offs as a matter of policy is a useful starting point. It gives us many decisions to study; cases about criminals usually take up around a third of the Court's docket every term, which is enough to support interesting statistical inquiries and generalizations.
展开
扫一扫
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
