Judging the Law
Observers (and transgressors) prefer creative punishments
Timothy Kundro, Salvatore Affinito & Daniela Rodriguez-Mincey
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Observers are often dissatisfied with punishments handed down by judges for low-level crimes. This dissatisfaction emerges from a perceived trade-off between deterrence and severity. On the one hand, observers believe that harsher punishments are effective at deterring future criminal activity, but also balk at excessively harsh punishments because of their undue harm on transgressors. On the other hand, observers critique less harsh -- and even proportionate -- punishments for their inability to deter future crime. This trade-off, we argue, can be resolved when judges look beyond traditional punishments (e.g., jail time) and instead consider an increasingly popular alternative: creative punishments -- those that use case-specific factors to craft experiential sanctions for transgressors. We argue that creative punishments are increasing in popularity because they are perceived to achieve deterrence through experiential learning rather than a cost-benefit analysis stemming from harshness. In turn, we argue and demonstrate that transgressors themselves also prefer creative (vs. traditional) punishments. Thirteen studies test our model (nine in the article; four in the appendix), spanning yoked, experimental, causal-chain, and scenario designs, as well as an archival analysis -- using artificial intelligence -- of over 17,000 social media engagements with creative punishments.
Empty Reasons? Evidence from a Natural Experiment on the Effect of Public Reasoning Requirements
Edward Stiglitz
Journal of Legal Studies, June 2025, Pages 413-452
Abstract:
Norms of reason-giving rest at the foundation of public institutions, plausibly disciplining officials where financial and electoral incentives do not apply. Yet do requirements for reason-giving induce officials to pursue statutory objectives or behave prosocially? Little observational evidence exists on this question. I study a natural experiment in federal procurement in which contracting officials were required to provide reasons if they awarded certain noncompetitive contracts but only if valued above a statutory threshold. Using a difference-in-differences design, I find that the reason-giving requirement substantially increased the probability that officials competed contracts, thus complying with the statutory objective. I also explore a discontinuity design but discover sorting around the threshold by sophisticated entities, further supporting the materiality of reason-giving. Secondary results suggest the requirement reduced the volume of contracts awarded and altered the composition of firms receiving contracts. These findings speak to the force of reason-giving requirements and their complex trade-offs.
The innovation consequences of judicial efficiency
Jinhwan Kim, Terrence Tianshuo Shi & Rodrigo Verdi
Journal of Accounting and Economics, forthcoming
Abstract:
We examine how judicial efficiency, defined as a court's ability to resolve patent cases quickly and in a manner that is mutually agreeable to both parties in the lawsuit, impacts corporate innovation. To do so, we exploit the Patent Pilot Program (PPP) introduced by the U.S. Congress in 2011, which allowed judges with expertise and resources (as opposed to randomly selected judges) to preside over more patent cases to facilitate efficient ruling. We find firms headquartered in counties subject to the PPP increase patent-based innovation by 6.9%, relative to firms in counties not under the program. The increase is driven both by greater investments in R&D as well as firms strategically transitioning their trade secrets to patents. Moreover, patents filed after the PPP exhibit higher patent disclosure quality, consistent with the PPP providing a reliable enforcement mechanism that curbs competitors from illegally exploiting patent information. Our results are concentrated among firms with high legal costs and uncertainty: firms that engage in innovation with "fuzzy boundaries", that have high litigation risk, and that are small and private. Probing further, we find that small private firms are significantly better at safeguarding their intellectual property (IP) using the judicial system, which in turn, helps them attract more venture capital investments after the PPP. Taken together, our findings underscore the important role of judicial efficiency in facilitating innovation and IP protection.
Judicial influence and the importance of intersecting identities
Abigail Matthews & Rachael Hinkle
Research & Politics, July 2025
Abstract:
Judges, like all of us, possess multiple intersecting identities. Drawing on social identity theory, we examine how gender, race, and partisanship jointly influence judicial citation practices. We hypothesize that in-group favoritism motivates judges to preferentially cite peers with whom they share salient identities, and that this effect intensifies as the number of shared identities increases. Using an extensive dataset of discretionary citations from search and seizure cases between 2000 and 2010, we find that sharing a single identity yields no significant effect. However, as the number of shared identities increases, so does the probability of citation. Judges who share race, gender, and partisanship exhibit a 25% higher probability of citation relative to those with no shared identity. These findings highlight the cumulative impact of intersecting identities on judicial influence and behavior, emphasizing that diversity is critical for the development of legal precedent and the law.
Cite and Sway? Attorneys, Briefs, and Persuasion at the U.S. Supreme Court
Elizabeth Lane & Jessica Schoenherr
Journal of Politics, forthcoming
Abstract:
Supreme Court justices complete large amounts of work in short periods of time, and they need attorneys' help to get it done. Attorneys provide that help in merits briefs, where they offer preliminary legal research while also trying to persuade the justices toward their side. One persuasive tactic utilized in briefs is showing specific sitting justices how their past decisions lead them to favor one side over the other. Do attorneys do this and does it work? Using new citation data collected from 2,396 cases presented between the 1984 and 2018 terms, we analyze the frequency with which attorneys mention sitting Supreme Court justices' past decisions explicitly and in passing. We then examine if the attorneys' appeals convince the justices to side with them. Our results suggest that attorneys target ideologically-congruent justices and the median justice, and that doing so significantly increases the likelihood of winning that justice's vote.
Four (and a half) preregistered failures to replicate the weapon focus effect in online samples
John West, Neil Mulligan & Brian Bornstein
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, forthcoming
Abstract:
Prior research suggests that witnesses have worse memory for armed compared to unarmed perpetrators, a finding known as the weapon focus effect (WFE). Because many legal professionals and eyewitness experts believe that the presence of a weapon has harmful effects on witness memory, determining the generality of this effect is of great importance. Initially, the current investigation was concerned with identifying moderators of the WFE. However, because we were unable to replicate the WFE, subsequent experiments focused on investigating the effect's replicability in the context of online samples. In total, we conducted five preregistered experiments ranging from 100 to 800 participants each (total n = 1,316). These experiments used materials from studies that had previously shown significant WFEs and varied in presentation modality (videos or slides), the presence of audio, weapon type (knife or gun), perpetrator gender (male or female), and sample type (student or nonstudent). Evidence supporting the replicability of the WFE was weak. We did not find a significant WFE for target description or lineup identification in any experiment, and some experiments showed significant anti-WFEs, where participants had better memory for armed compared to unarmed perpetrators. Random effects meta-analyses using data from all experiments found that the effect of weapon presence on both memory outcomes was nonsignificant. Taken together, the current results suggest that the WFE is either not replicable or is highly dependent on methodological factors such as study modality.
Biased Evaluation of Pain and Suffering Damages
Maytal Gilboa & Tamar Kricheli Katz
Journal of Law & Empirical Analysis, forthcoming
Abstract:
Studies have documented racial and gender-based disparities in civil jury awards. Legal scholars have raised concerns that biases might be especially prevalent in awarding pain and suffering damages, which are particularly open-ended and difficult to estimate. We contribute to this body of literature by providing experimental evidence of a causal relationship between the perceived race and gender of victims, the perception of their pain and suffering, and the damages awarded to them. We focus on two types of injuries: head and knee injuries, on the intersection of gender and race and on related evaluations of victims' behavior. We find that people perceive the pain and suffering of White victims to be greater than that of Black victims afflicted by the same head injury. The most alarming finding of our experiment is that Black male victims receive significantly lower amounts of damages for pain and suffering associated with both head and knee injuries compared to all other victims. By contrast, Black female victims are not penalized compared to White women and men, and receive significantly higher amounts of damages for their pain and suffering associated with both head and knee injuries compared to Black men.
The Road to Debtors' Probation: How Criminalizing Traffic Violations Increases State Control and Inequality in Georgia
Brittany Martin, Amairini Sanchez & Andrea Giuffre
Criminal Justice and Behavior, forthcoming
Abstract:
Research highlights the role of misdemeanors in expanding the reach of the U.S. criminal legal system. However, less is known about the implications of criminalizing traffic offenses. This study investigates the consequences of categorizing traffic violations as criminal in Georgia and the legal financial obligations imposed by courts. We triangulate data from 60 interviews and 120 hr of court observations across six jurisdictions in Georgia using a two-phased inductive-deductive coding approach. We find that Georgia's misdemeanor traffic courts rely heavily on probation as a payment mechanism, often imposing additional fees and prolonged surveillance on individuals unable to pay fines upfront. This system amplifies financial burdens, increases incarceration risks, and varies significantly across jurisdictions, functioning as a net-widening tool that deepens individuals' entanglement with the criminal legal system. We recommend restructuring "pay-only" probation and echo calls for more robust procedures to assess individuals' capacity to pay.
Consumer Bankruptcy, Mortgage Default, and Labor Supply
Wenli Li, Costas Meghir & Florian Oswald
International Economic Review, forthcoming
Abstract:
We specify and estimate a life-cycle model of consumption, housing demand, and labor supply in an environment where individuals can file for bankruptcy and/or default on their mortgages in the presence of house price shock, income shock, and catastrophic expenditure events. A key feature of the model is that individuals differ by education, which dictates their income process and preference. We estimate the model using data on credit reports and mortgages combined with Census data. Our model demonstrates that current bankruptcy and foreclosure laws have significant distributional impact. Specifically, Chapter 7 bankruptcy benefits low educated individuals but imposes large welfare costs on those with high education. Chapter 13 bankruptcy also benefits the low education group and affects the high education group little. Recourse laws, by contrast, are costly to low education groups, but beneficial to the high education group.