
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 such research focuses on courts where individual votes are public — but what about 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 such research focuses on courts where individual votes are public — but what about 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:

314 Listeners

149 Listeners

141 Listeners

52 Listeners

2,592 Listeners

153 Listeners

366 Listeners

3,858 Listeners

1,314 Listeners

851 Listeners

347 Listeners

125 Listeners

122 Listeners

48 Listeners

146 Listeners