| Autor: |
Garoupa, Nuno, Gómez Pomar, Fernando, Segura, Adrián, Canudas, Sheila |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
European Journal of Law & Economics; Aug2023, Vol. 56 Issue 1, p1-21, 21p |
| Abstrakt: |
Traditionally, the conventional views in legal and comparative literature portray civil-law judiciaries as legalistic bureaucracies insulated from political preferences. We investigate decisions on appeal for terrorist actions at the Spanish Supreme Court in the period 2000–2021. Our findings show that ideology (proxied by conservative/progressive affiliation of judges) is a predictor of prodefendant outcomes. Specifically, the results detect a pattern of behavior mediated by panel composition: a more conservative panel is less likely to be prodefendant than a more progressive panel in adjudicating terrorism criminal appeals. These findings confirm previous empirical studies about decisions by the Spanish Supreme Court in other areas of law and provide additional evidence to raise doubts about the conventional literature's account of civil-law judiciaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink