TY - JOUR
T1 - Facts, Preferences, and Doctrine
T2 - An Empirical Analysis of Proportionality Judgment
AU - Sulitzeanu-Kenan, Raanan
AU - Kremnitzer, Mordechai
AU - Alon, Sharon
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Law and Society Association.
PY - 2016/6/1
Y1 - 2016/6/1
N2 - Legal proportionality is one of the most important principles for adjudicating among conflicting values. However, rather little is known about the factors that play a role in the formation of proportionality judgments. This research presents the first empirical analysis in this regard, relying on a sample of 331 legal experts (lawyers and legal academics). The policy domain addressed by the experiment is the antiterrorist military practice of targeted killings, which has been the subject of a legal debate. Our experimental findings suggest that proportionality judgments are receptive to normatively relevant facts. We also find strong correlational evidence for the effect of ideological preferences on such judgments. These results are consistent for two proportionality doctrines. We suggest that proportionality judgment is anchored jointly in the experts' policy preferences and the facts of the case. We outline the implications of the findings for the psychological and legal literature.
AB - Legal proportionality is one of the most important principles for adjudicating among conflicting values. However, rather little is known about the factors that play a role in the formation of proportionality judgments. This research presents the first empirical analysis in this regard, relying on a sample of 331 legal experts (lawyers and legal academics). The policy domain addressed by the experiment is the antiterrorist military practice of targeted killings, which has been the subject of a legal debate. Our experimental findings suggest that proportionality judgments are receptive to normatively relevant facts. We also find strong correlational evidence for the effect of ideological preferences on such judgments. These results are consistent for two proportionality doctrines. We suggest that proportionality judgment is anchored jointly in the experts' policy preferences and the facts of the case. We outline the implications of the findings for the psychological and legal literature.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84964744561&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/lasr.12203
DO - 10.1111/lasr.12203
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
AN - SCOPUS:84964744561
SN - 0023-9216
VL - 50
SP - 348
EP - 382
JO - Law and Society Review
JF - Law and Society Review
IS - 2
ER -