Decision Making in Collegial Courts

Factors that affect the decision-making process

Attitudinal and strategic models

 In attitudinal model, judges derive their attitudes from personal policy preferences and ideologies. In strategic model, judges follow the presumed interactions and they are influenced by internal dynamics on order to achieve strategic goals (Edwards, 2003). In other words, judges follow these models and tend to ignore the law requirements and others’ ideologies. Given that judges with high supervision focus on quantitative data, judges in lower hierarchy focus on qualitative elements which maximize collective decision, deliberation and personal interaction. These creates dissenting opinions is where judges holds unalterable positions when addressing issue especially in controversial issues (Edwards, 2003).

 Institutional constraints

 In decision making, judges are influenced by the perceptions that courts are institutions rather than viewing it a place where members should express their attitudes (Edwards, 2003). Judges fail to understand that the court is a place where there should be shared purposes, maintenance of corporate authority, participation and professional obligation. Institutional attitudes makes the judges develop institutional perspectives. Judges do not consider the different views of other members and raises a big problem since both parties do not participate at a common ground (Edwards, 2003).

 

Diversity

 The author of this article states that in decision making, there is diversity in age, sex and other geographical and culture background. These factors bring different issues and make it hard to achieve a collegial environment (Edwards, 2003).  In addition, demographic factors affect the grioup functioning as it contributed to ineffective communication and stereotyping. Diversity brings a conflict since judges develops political preferences. Diversity is also contributed by professional background where group members posses different level of knowledge. In decision making, there is   a judicial division which contributes to ‘ideological camps’ (Edwards, 2003).

Law clerks

 A court with diverse ideologies especially on political views hinders effective conversation between judges (Edwards, 2003). Law clears who supports judicial insularity makes judges in the top level of the hierarchy feel comfortable and this creates a division between judges.  

 

Theories of Judicial Decision-making

Comparison between the legal theory and political theory

 There is a similarity between   the legal theory and political theory because both follow law and controlling authority. However, there is a big difference in that in legal theory, judges focus on law and employs system application which abides with the law or authority (Cross, 2003).  In others words, judges stick to law and they avoid applying political ideologies in addressing the case. Judges take legal roots from authoritative sources in order to make the right judgment. On the other hand, judges address the case with respect to personal ideologies and tend to provide judgment for the interest of society (Cross, 2003). However, it does not means that judges  violates   the democracy rights, what happens is that they  abides with law but  employs some political concepts. In addition, they are conservative in imposing legal rulings.

Legal theory and The Litigant-Driven Theory during the appeals process

In this theory, litigants decisions have a big impact since they determines the outcomes which judge with make. In other words, law, persona opinions and Supreme Court preferences do not play role. What happens is that judges decide with respect to litigants request and agendas (Cross, 2003).  In addition, the litigants have self-reporting evidence and this may co tribute to a positive verdict and minima damages. Other theory which is effective t during the case of appeal is the legal theory. This is because, there is a legal procedure and there will be a room to view evidence, abuse of discretion and deference. In addition, through the legal standards, there will be more affirmances and an appeal will be accepted (Cross, 2003).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference

Cross, F. B. (2003). Decision-making in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. California Law Review, 91(6),

1459-515.

 

Edwards, H. T. (2003). THE EFFECTS OF COLLEGIALITY ON JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING. University Of

Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(5), 1639.