
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Courts are supposed to treat like cases alike. But research consistently finds that judges' backgrounds and beliefs can influence their decisions. Most research focuses on courts where individual votes are public, but what about in systems where only a collective judgment is published?
A new study uses innovative statistical analysis of Swiss court data to shed light on exactly this problem, with implications for how judicial institutions everywhere should be designed.
Joining host Alan Renwick are two of the study's authors, both from the UCL Department of Political Science: Ben Lauderdale, Professor of Political Science, and Judith Spirig, Associate Professor of Political Science.
Mentioned in this episode:
By UCL Political Science4.6
77 ratings
Courts are supposed to treat like cases alike. But research consistently finds that judges' backgrounds and beliefs can influence their decisions. Most research focuses on courts where individual votes are public, but what about in systems where only a collective judgment is published?
A new study uses innovative statistical analysis of Swiss court data to shed light on exactly this problem, with implications for how judicial institutions everywhere should be designed.
Joining host Alan Renwick are two of the study's authors, both from the UCL Department of Political Science: Ben Lauderdale, Professor of Political Science, and Judith Spirig, Associate Professor of Political Science.
Mentioned in this episode:

301 Listeners

158 Listeners

140 Listeners

50 Listeners

2,534 Listeners

145 Listeners

348 Listeners

3,336 Listeners

1,183 Listeners

797 Listeners

328 Listeners

123 Listeners

134 Listeners

45 Listeners

139 Listeners