Implications of rational choice theory in judges' decisions

دانشنامه حقوق اقتصادی

Volume 29, Issue 22, February 2023, Pages 380-349   

Document Type: Scientific research

DOI: 10.22067/economlaw.2023.76637.1180

Authors

zahra sakiani^{* 1}; mojtaba ghasemi²

¹faculty of law and political science, Tehran university, Tehran, Iran

²Assistant Professor of Law and Economics, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

A set of factors that affect Judicial behavior have been studied from the perspective of various sciences such as economics. Economics offers a specific way of delving into different subjects. Regarding the concepts of rational choice theory in economics such as its definitional meaning (making proportional tools and goals), maximizing expected utility, and maximizing wealth, this paper seeks to show what factors can influence judicial decisions and behaviors. It seems that recognizing the factors influencing the behavior of judges by policymakers and paying attention to them in policy-making can increasingly affect the quality and quantity of verdicts reached by judges and can lead to better allocation of financial resources in the judiciary system. The finding results based on library resources and descriptive-analytical methods show that hiring more judges to increase court outputs is not always an optimal solution. Even in some cases, an increase in judges' productivity allowances can provide enough external incentive to improve the quality and quantity of their verdicts.
 

Keywords

rational choice; judicial behavior; judicial productivity; maximization

References

• Bahremand, H., Sakiani, Z. (2021). Criminals' decision-making from the perspective of behavioral economics and its implications in criminal policy-making, The Judiciary Law Journal, 85 (115), 44-21 (in Persian).
• Becker, G. (1976), “The Economic Approach to Human Behavior”, University of Chicago Press, pp 3-14.
• Beenstock, M., & Haitovsky, Y. (2004). Does the appointment of judges increase the output of the judiciary?. International Review of Law and Economics, 24(3), 351-369.
• Cooter, R., Ulen, T. (2012). Law and Economics, translated from English by Dadgar, Y., Akhavan, H., Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University Press (in Persian).
• cserne, P. (2020), economic approaches to legal reasoning: an overview, in economics in legal reasoning, edited by Péter Cserne, Fabrizio Esposito.
• Danziger,S., Levav, J. & avnaim-pesso, L. (2011), extraneous factors in judicial decisions, proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 108 (17). 6889-6892.
• Deyneli, F., & Mascini, P. (2020). Utility Maximizing Judges and Judicial Assistants: Testing Rational Choice Theory in 22 EU Countries. In IJCA(Vol. 11, p. 1).
• Dimitrova-Grajzl, V. P., Grajzl, P., Sustersic, J., & Zajc, K. (2010). Court Output, Judicial Staffing, and the Demand for Court Services: Evidence from Slovenian Courts of First Instance. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1621717
• Dimitrova-Grajzl, V., Grajzl, P., Slavov, A., & Zajc, K. (2016). Courts in a transition economy: Case disposition and the quantity–quality tradeoff in Bulgaria. Economic Systems, 40(1), Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2569351.
• Engel, C., & Weinshall, K. (2020). Manna from Heaven for Judges: Judges’ Reaction to a Quasi‐Random Reduction in Caseload.Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 17(4), 722-751.
• Epstein, L. lands, W., posner, R. (2013), the behavior of federal judges:a theoretical and empirical study of rational choice, Harvard university press.
• Falavigna, G., Ippoliti, R., & Ramello, G. B. (2018). DEA-based Malmquist productivity indexes for understanding courts reform. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 62, 31-43.‏
• Falavigna, G., Ippoliti, R., Manello, A., & Ramello, G. B. (2015). Judicial productivity, delay and efficiency: A Directional Distance Function (DDF) approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 240(2), 592–601, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.014 
• Hajidehabadi, M., salami, E. (2019). Fundamentals, principle and practice of purposeful Penalization model, Criminal Law Research, 8 (29), 101-134 (in Persian).
• Hirshleifer, D., Levi, Y., Lourie, B., & Teoh, S. H. (2018). Decision fatigue and heuristic analyst forecasts. NBER Working Paper No. 24293, p3.
• Kornhauser, Lewis A. (2018), Economic Logic and Legal Logic, In Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation,711-745
• Korobkin, R. B., & Ulen, T. S. (2000). Law and behavioral science: Removing the rationality assumption from law and economics.  L. Rev., 88, 1051.
• Posner, R. A. (1993). What do judges and justices maximize?(The same thing everybody else does). Supreme Court Economic Review, 3, 1-41.
• Rosales-López, V. (2008). Economics of court performance: an empirical analysis. European Journal of Law and Economics, 25(3), 231-251.
• Sakiani, z., Vaezi, S.A. (2022). The effect of cognitive biases on the quality of justice in the decision-making of criminal courts judges, 86 (119), 247-271 (in Persian).
• Samuelson, W., Zeckhauser, R. (1988), status que bias in decision making, journal of risk and uncertainty, 1 (1), 7-59.
• Winter, H. (2008). The economics of crime: an introduction to rational crime analysis, translated from English by Bahremand, H. and Sakini, Z., Tehran: Dadgostar publication (in Persian).
• https://dotic.ir/news/10665
• https://dotic.ir/news/8363