Facts, Preferences, and Doctrine
An Empirical Analysis of Proportionality Judgment
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4084563 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Raanan Sulitzeanu-Kenan (0000-0001-9663-8954), Mordechai Kremnitzer (0000-0002-9269-6441), Sharon Alon |
| Year | 2016 |
| Volume | 50 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 348-382 |
| Publication date | 2016-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Law & Society Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0023-9216 • E-ISSN: 1540-5893 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1111/lasr.12203 |
| OpenAlex | W2345355090 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 43 |
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
Doctrine · Legal doctrine · Political science · Proportionality (law · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal and Constitutional Studies · Psychology · Social Psychology
The Cognitive Psychology of Rules of Interpretation in International Law
Liberal–democratic values and philosophers' beliefs about moral expertise
Protecting Rights in the Policy Process
Understanding public acceptance of data collection by intelligence services in the Netherlands
The slippery slope of rights-restricting temporary measures
Left‐Right Ideological Differences in Moral Judgments
An Old Measure of Decision-Making Quality Sheds New Light on Paternalism
Advances In Experimental Social Psychology
Party Policy in Modern Democracies
Rules versus Standards
Toward an Integration of Cognitive and Motivational Perspectives on Social Inference
Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior
Political Ideology
Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models
American Public Opinion
Implicit Discrimination
Incommensurability, Proportionality, and Rational Legal Decision-Making
Lessons for human rights and humanitarian law in the war on terror
Motivated Cognition in Legal Judgments—An Analytic Review
A Development of Modest Proportions
Targeted Killings and Proportionality in Law
Using the Correct Statistical Test for the Equality of Regression Coefficients
The Motivated Processing of Political Arguments
Proportionality in the Morality of War
Managerial Values and Accountability Pressures
Policy Preference Formation in Legislative Politics
Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs
Making a Difference
Motivated skepticism
The case for motivated reasoning
Collective Identity and Electoral Competition in Israel
Measurement Validity
Coalition-directed Voting in Multiparty Democracies
Between Facts and Norms
Motivated Reasoning
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2025 (6) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |