Zoekresultaat: 12 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid x

Jaap van den Herik
Jaap van den Herik was een van de grondleggers van de Kunstmatige Intelligentie in Nederland (1981) en is erelid van de NVKI. Als voltijds hoogleraar Informaticawas hij verbonden aan de Universiteit Maastricht (1987- 2008) en aan Tilburg University (2008-2016), en als parttime hoogleraar Informatica en Recht aan de Universiteit Leiden (1988-2019). Op dit moment is hij samen met Professor Jan Scholtes initiatiefnemer van de LCDS-CPL opleiding Leiden Legal Technologies Programma (LLTP) in Den Haag.
Artikel

Access_open Het effect van een pro Justitia-rapportage op de bewijsbeslissing: een empirische verkenning

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden Pro Justitia, Guilt, Conviction, Forensic mental health report
Auteurs Roosmarijn van Es MSc., Dr. Janne van Doorn, Prof. dr. Jan de Keijser e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    A forensic mental health report is requested in about 30% of more serious cases presented to the criminal court. These reports can be used at sentencing and advise the judge on criminal responsibility, recidivism risk, and possible treatment measures, but is not a formal factor in decisions about guilt. The current study focuses on the (unwarranted) effect of forensic mental health information on conviction decisions. Using an experimental vignette study among 155 criminology students, results show that when a mental disorder is present, conviction rates are higher than when such information is absent. In line with the story model of judicial decision-making, additional analyses showed that this effect was mediated by the evaluation of guilt rather than by the evaluation of other physical evidence. Implications for further research and practice are discussed.


Roosmarijn van Es MSc.
Roosmarijn van Es is promovenda bij het Instituut voor Strafrecht en Criminologie aan Universiteit Leiden. Haar onderzoek richt zich op de rol van informatie in pro Justitia-rapportages in rechterlijke beslissingen over bewijs en straf.

Dr. Janne van Doorn
Janne van Doorn is universitair docent bij het Instituut voor Strafrecht en Criminologie aan Universiteit Leiden.

Prof. dr. Jan de Keijser
Jan de Keijser is hoogleraar Criminologie bij het Instituut voor Strafrecht en Criminologie aan Universiteit Leiden.

Prof. dr. mr. Maarten Kunst
Maarten Kunst is hoogleraar Criminologie bij het Instituut voor Strafrecht en Criminologie aan Universiteit Leiden.
Recensies en signalementen

Twee perspectieven op rechterlijke besluitvorming

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2020
Auteurs mr.dr. André Verburg
Auteursinformatie

mr.dr. André Verburg
André Verburg is staatsraad bij de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State en verbonden aan de Universiteit Utrecht / het Montaigne Centrum voor Rechtsstaat en Rechtspleging. In 2019 is hij gepromoveerd op Bestuursrechtspraak in balans. Bejegening, beslechting en bewijs (diss. Utrecht), Den Haag: Boom juridisch (Verburg 2019), een proefschrift waarin de verhouding tussen procedurele rechtvaardigheid en de procedure bij de rechter wordt doordacht.

Dr. Nienke Doornbos
Nienke Doornbos is universitair docent Rechtssociologie aan de Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Haar onderzoek richt zich onder meer op beroepsethische kwesties bij juridische beroepen.

Dr. Paulien de Winter
Paulien de Winter is universitair docent Empirisch Juridisch Onderzoek bij de Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid aan de Rijksuniversiteit in Groningen. Zij doet onderzoek naar hoe uitvoerende medewerkers omgaan met regels.
Werk in uitvoering

The role of attitudes in the professional judicial decision-making progress: a work in progress

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden Professional judicial decision-making process, Attitudes, Impartiality, Semi-structured interviews, Scenario-survey
Auteurs Mr. Elke Olthuis
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In our daily decision-making processes, attitudes play an important role. An attitude is an evaluative judgement of a person, object or an issue on a scale of favorability. A large amount of research has been done on the role of attitudes in our daily decision-making processes. There is, however, a gap in empirical knowledge when it concerns the role of attitudes in the professional judicial decision-making process. It has been accepted that the professional judicial decision-making process has a subjective element, but this subjective element remains unexplained. Attitudes are inherently personal and subjective, and they can make our decision-making process easier. They can, however, also be the basis for biases and prejudices. Herein lies a potential risk, especially in the professional judicial decision-making process. If attitudes play a role in the decision-making process of judges there is a possibility that impartiality, one of the judiciary’s core professional values, might be unobtainable. To see whether attitudes play a role in the professional judicial decision-making process semi-structured interviews will be conducted among judges, who will also be asked to fill in a scenario survey. Hopefully the obtained data will lead to a start in filling this gap in empirical knowledge.


Mr. Elke Olthuis
Elke Olthuis is een promovenda bij de Universiteit van Amsterdam. In haar onderzoek integreert ze recht en psychologie. Ze is verbonden aan het PPLE College en het Paul Scholten Centre for Jurisprudence.
Artikel

Access_open Vergelijkende rechtscultuur en aansprakelijkheidsrecht – een verkennend experiment

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2018
Trefwoorden Legal culture, Civil law, Justice, Experiment, Empirical Legal Research
Auteurs Prof. dr. Willem van Boom, Dr. Chris Reinders Folmer en Dr. Pieter Desmet
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    A common conception in the legal literature holds that in a given country, the law in force is to be understood against the background of shared beliefs about justice in that particular country. If that conception holds true, the applicable civil law in a particular country should reflect the shared views on ‘civil justice’ within that country and, as a result, citizens should reveal a preference for domestic civil law over the civil law of another country for a given case. In this research we empirically investigated to what extent the applicable law in particular cases corresponds to actual beliefs about what is seen as just in those situations. Does Dutch liability law in a particular case correspond with what citizens in the Netherlands consider to be just in that case? And does the applicable English liability law correspond to what English people consider fair in that case?
    In an experiment we compared Dutch and English respondents’ views on the fairness of legal solutions in three different, hypothetical cases where Dutch and English legal solutions to the same case would diverge. We find that at the aggregate level, respondents indeed reveal a preference for the legal solution that is applicable in their own country, regardless of whether the different legal solutions are presented as applicable or not: Dutch respondents prefer Dutch civil solutions and English respondents prefer English civil solutions. However, we also observe differences between cases that make strong conclusions about a structural correspondence premature.


Prof. dr. Willem van Boom
Willem van Boom is hoogleraar civiel recht aan de Leiden Law School.

Dr. Chris Reinders Folmer
Chris Reinders Folmer is postdoc rechtspsychologie aan de Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam.

Dr. Pieter Desmet
Pieter Desmet is hoofddocent rechtspsychologie aan de Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam.
Praktijk

Wat gebeurt er op de gang? Een kwalitatief empirisch onderzoek naar schikkingsonderhandelingen tijdens civielrechtelijke procedures

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden Settlement negotiations, Distributive negotiations, Qualitative empirical research, Biases, Heuristics
Auteurs Mr. Lucas Lieverse
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    There is little known on settlement negotiations during civil lawsuits in the Netherlands. Settlement negotiations take place during a (suspension of the) public court hearing. The public hearing takes place in the majority of the civil lawsuits in the Netherlands. The qualitative empirical research I am carrying out, intents to give insight in these settlement negotiations and questions what lawyers actually do during these negotiations. The research intents to contribute to the effectiveness of settlement negotiations in the sense that (i) the number of settlements increases and of compulsory settlements decreases, (ii) the perceived fairness of procedure and outcome in settled cases increases, and (iii) the number of resolved underlying conflicts increases.
    I expect to find that most settlement negotiations can be qualified as distributive negotiations (as opposed to integrative negotiations). Furthermore, based on a literature review on biases and heuristics I hypothesized that settlement could be more effective than they actually are. The paper touches on the methodology and on both hypotheses.


Mr. Lucas Lieverse
Lucas Lieverse is docent en onderzoeker bij Zuyd Hogeschool en voor zijn PhD-onderzoek als buitenpromovendus verbonden aan het Montaigne Centrum voor Rechtspleging en Conflictoplossing van de Universiteit Utrecht. Hij heeft als gewezen advocaat ervaring met en is geïnteresseerd in civiel (proces)recht en (juridische) conflictoplossing, waarbij hij inzichten uit verschillende disciplines verbindt.
Artikel

Understanding judges’ choices of sentence types as interpretative work: An explorative study in a Dutch police court

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2016
Trefwoorden Judicial decision-making, sentencing type, (ir)redeemability, whole case approach
Auteurs Peter Mascini, Irene van Oorschot PhD, Assistant professor Don Weenink e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article critically evaluates the prevailing factor-oriented (e.g. a priori defined legal and extralegal characteristics of defendants) approach in analyses of judicial decision-making. Rather than assuming such factors, we aim to demonstrate how Dutch judges engage in interpretative work to arrive at various sentence types. In their interpretative work, judges attempt to weigh and compare various legal and extralegal features of defendants. Importantly, they do so in the context of the case as a whole, which means that these features do not have independent or fixed meanings. Judges select and weigh information to create an image of defendants’ redeemability. However, extralegal concerns other than redeemability also inform judges’ decisions. We argue that studying the naturally occurring interpretative work of judges results in a better understanding of judicial decision-making than outcome-oriented studies, which view criminal cases as collections of independent legal and extralegal factors.


Peter Mascini
Peter Mascini holds a chair in Empirical Legal Studies at the Erasmus School of Law of the Erasmus University Rotterdam, where he is also associate professor of sociology at the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences. His research focuses on the legitimization, implementation, and enforcement of laws and policies.

Irene van Oorschot PhD
Irene van Oorschot is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of the Social Sciences at the Erasmus University Rotterdam and will soon start as a postdoctoral researcher at the Anthropology Department of the University of Amsterdam. Drawing on actor network theory and feminist studies of knowledge, her research focuses on legal and scientific modes of truth-production.

Assistant professor Don Weenink
Don Weenink is assistant professor of Sociology at the Department of Sociology at the University of Amsterdam. He has published work on, among other subjects, ethnic inequalities in judicial sentencing.

Gratiëlla Schippers
Gratiëlla Schippers has studied Sociology at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. For her master thesis she has done research about the understanding of judges’ choices of sentence types.
Artikel

Wetgeving, empirisch-juridisch onderzoek en Legal Big Data

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2015
Trefwoorden legislation, big data, empirical legal research, nudging
Auteurs Frans L. Leeuw
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    A second empirical revolution in law is in full swing: legal big data have made their entrance and will play an increasingly important role in the legal field. Legal big data, for example, increase the accessibility and transparency of files. They make it easier for legislators to find out how society views proposed legislation. Using big data, all jurisprudence can be processed very easily and judicial decisions can be predicted with a high degree of certainty. The contribution concludes with a number of legal and ethical issues and methodological challenges in relation to legal big data, such as ownership, privacy and representativeness.


Frans L. Leeuw
Frans L. Leeuw is directeur van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC) bij het ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. Tevens is hij hoogleraar Recht, openbaar bestuur en sociaalwetenschappelijk onderzoek aan de universiteit van Maastricht. Eerder was hij onder meer directeur Doelmatigheidsonderzoek bij de Algemene Rekenkamer. Hij publiceerde vele artikelen en boeken, vooral op het terrein van evaluatie.
Artikel

Legitimatie van de rechterlijke bewijsbeslissing door het opnemen van alternatieve scenario's in de motivering

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2014
Trefwoorden legal proof in criminal law, judicial motivation, miscarriage of justice
Auteurs Mirnah Scholten
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Recently there have been several miscarriages of justice in the Netherlands, which were widely reported in the media. They show that much can go wrong with legal proof in criminal cases and that judges sometimes give limited justification for their decisions. Insights from the so-called story-based approach to legal proof can potentially assist to improve and to critically assess judicial decisions in criminal cases, thereby helping to reduce the chance of mistakes. The story-based approach involves constructing and critically analyzing at least two stories about what (might have) happened in a case that explain the evidential data. These stories have to be compared to each other in order to decide which story is the most plausible. The judge has to include the different scenarios in his judgment and he must explain why the scenario he had chosen is the most plausible. In my paper I first discuss why it is important that judges justify their decision in a verdict. Then I explicate the story based approach. After that I explain how applying the story based approach in the motivation can be useful and help to reduce the chance of a miscarriage of justice.


Mirnah Scholten
Mirnah Scholten is promovenda bij de vakgroep rechtstheorie aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Haar onderzoek gaat over de motivering van de bewijsbeslissing van de rechter in strafzaken.
Discussie

Still a rule of law guy

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2013
Trefwoorden rule of law, sociology of law, suppression of arbitrary power, normative theory
Auteurs Martin Krygier
Auteursinformatie

Martin Krygier
Martin Krygier is Gordon Samuels Professor of Law and Social Theory at the University of New South Wales, co-director of its Network for Interdisciplinary Studies of Law, Adjunct Professor at the Regulatory Institutions Network, Australian National University, and a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Social Sciences. His most recent book is Philip Selznick. Ideals in the World, Stanford University Press, 2012. He has written extensively on the rule of law: its nature, conditions, and challenges. Apart from some 40 essays on these themes, he has edited and contributed to Spreading Democracy and the Rule of Law? (Springer Verlag, 2006); Rethinking the Rule of Law after Communism (CEU Press, 2005); Community and Legality: the Intellectual Legacy of Philip Selznick (Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), The Rule of Law after Communism (Ashgate, 1999), Marxism and Communism. Posthumous Reflections on Politics, Society, and Law (Rodopi, 1994). He is on the editorial boards of the Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Ratio Juris, East Central Europe, and is a contributing jurisprudence editor to Jotwell (Journal of things we like lots).
Praktijk

Meervoudige en enkelvoudige rechtspraak: eender of anders?

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2011
Trefwoorden adjudication, single judge, collegial court, judicial decision making
Auteurs Reyer Baas
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Adjudication by single judge or by a panel of judges: what difference does it make? Until the eighties, panels consisting of three judges predominantly presided on judicial cases in the Netherlands . As a result of arrears in settling cases, it was decided that one judge should administer justice should in first instance and in principle. However, little is known about the substantial differences between adjudication by single judge courts and panels, particularly when it comes to the quality of decision making. In his PhD research, Reyer Baas examines the substantial differences and similarities between these types of adjudication. The main method applied in this research is paired comparison between judgements in civil cases that are very similar in terms of content. Some of the examined cases are handled by one judge, other cases are considered by a panel of judges. Judges are surveyed and interviewed about their experiences with and opinions on adjudication in chambers consisting of one or three judges; (single judge and panels) court sessions and hearings in chambers are observed; and figures are gathered that show the extent to which judgements given by one judge and by three judges are reversed on appeal.


Reyer Baas
Reyer Baas is als promovendus verbonden aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Zijn promotieonderzoek gaat over verschillen en overeenkomsten in de afdoening van zaken door een enkelvoudige en meervoudige kamer. In het verleden heeft hij gepubliceerd over jeugdrecht. Hij studeerde internationaal en Europees recht en politicologie in Nijmegen en Parijs.
Interface Showing Amount
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.