Volume 12 : 2
Editorial
Is the Statement of Reasons for Civil Judicial Decisions an Effective Guarantee?
Access Filters and the Institutional Performance of the Supreme Courts
The Domestic Legislative Implementation of the EAPO Regulation: Integration and Frictions With National Civil Procedural Systems
‘Undressing” the Procedure: Three Limits of Civil Procedure and the Role of Proportionality
Justice in Ukraine Under Martial Law
The Public Policy Defence in the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Greece
The Greek Cadastral Law as a Cluster of Rules of Substantive and Procedural Law and Its Incorporation Into the European Framework
La Représentation Des Mineurs à L’action en Justice en Matière Civile: Faculté ou Obligation D’agir ?
Grandes Décisions / Leading Cases
Débat / Debate: No, Your Honour! Do Judicial Reasoning Styles Influence the Degree of Acceptance of Court Rulings by the General Public?
Book Review
Editorial
Is the Statement of Reasons for Civil Judicial Decisions an Effective Guarantee?
Access Filters and the Institutional Performance of the Supreme Courts
The Domestic Legislative Implementation of the EAPO Regulation: Integration and Frictions With National Civil Procedural Systems
‘Undressing” the Procedure: Three Limits of Civil Procedure and the Role of Proportionality
Justice in Ukraine Under Martial Law
The Public Policy Defence in the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Greece
The Greek Cadastral Law as a Cluster of Rules of Substantive and Procedural Law and Its Incorporation Into the European Framework
La Représentation Des Mineurs à L’action en Justice en Matière Civile: Faculté ou Obligation D’agir ?
Grandes Décisions / Leading Cases
Débat / Debate: No, Your Honour! Do Judicial Reasoning Styles Influence the Degree of Acceptance of Court Rulings by the General Public?
Book Review
Year
2022
Volume
12
Number
2
Page
404
Language
English
Court
Reference
W. VAN BOOM e.a., “Débat / Debate: No, Your Honour! Do Judicial Reasoning Styles Influence the Degree of Acceptance of Court Rulings by the General Public?”, IJPL 2022, nr. 2, 404-426
Recapitulation
In deciding private law disputes, courts give reasons. Yet, their styles of reasoning differ: they apply different styles of narration, persuasion and argumentation. Some courts may shape their reasoning by applying a formalistic style, referring to code articles and precedents and applying logical deduction rhetoric. Others may apply a more venerable, sacral style, referring to grand principles of law and ethical considerations that are presented as inescapably leading to one right solution. Undoubtedly, such differences are steeped in legal culture and history. They may, however, fall short of convincing the general public. For this public court reasoning styles may read and sound redundantly archaic, cold, fuzzy, impenetrable or worse. As a result, in recent years legal systems have witnessed a call for a more free-spoken, deliberative style of judicial reasoning. Some suggest that such a style would offer a clearer and more palpable alternative to the unnecessarily formalistic or venerable styles. Indeed, some even argue that a deliberative style would enhance the level of approval of court decisions by the lay public. This article reviews the evidentiary basis of such claims. What evidence is there on the relationship between judicial reasoning styles and acceptance of court decisions by the general public? To answer this question, we presented a sample of the general public in the Netherlands with one of three legal cases describing a court verdict and its reasoning. We gauged the influence of reasoning style on the degree of acceptance by using one of three styles, i.e., formalistic reasoning, venerable or sacral reasoning, and deliberative reasoning. Overall, the results show that reasoning styles do not influence the degree of acceptance by the public. Rather, the key predictor of accepting court decisions appears to be the moral support one has for the outcome of the case. This humbling outcome puts the push among legal scholars for less opaque and more transparent reasoning styles into perspective.
Dear visitor
This page is reserved for Jurisquare members.
If you already are a member, please click the 'Log in' button below. If you would like to become a member, please click the 'Subscribe' button below. You can have access to the largest legal library in Belgium from € 422,57(VAT excl.) onwards!