General Election Debates – Problems and Solutions

Pre-election debates are one of the most important steps in the electoral process – indeed, they serve an important public interest as they inform the American public about the issues of the day and offer a forum by which candidate proposed solutions may be heard. However, pre-election debates are led by moderators who generally do not have expertise in many of their key topic areas, such as law or judicial studies; and because of this, the propositions and arguments made by candidates in the pre-election time may be de-contextualized during debates such that the voting public may be misled in terms of the practicality of candidate positions. It is not unusual for individuals to unwittingly make propositions which insufficiently account for the confines of governmental structures, norms, and institutions in important ways. Likewise, it is not expectable for candidate to have absolute expertise in all areas of the debate, such as from health care to international law. This presents a real and pressing problem or issue for the quality of debates and democracy. It would be useful for pre-election debates to have additional facilitators present to provide basic factual and scientific information, as well to define key terms and principles relevant to American government and political life. Thus, given the current format of pre-election debates, this policy brief offers proposals to increase voter awareness and thus strengthen American democracy through amendments to the pre-election debate format for general elections.

A Pedagogical Model of Distance Training for the Continuous Training of Magistrates

Being aware of the importance of e-learning within existing training structures and in different professional contexts, this chapter aims to contribute to the modernization of the training practices implemented in the continuous training of magistrates, through the design of a pedagogical model of distance training, using a hybrid regime, to be implemented in the continuous training of magistrates. The implementation of a model of this nature is of great value for the training carried out by the Centre for Judicial Studies (CEJ), an entity responsible for the initial and continuous training of Portuguese magistrates, as it can constitute a pedagogical innovation of the training practices. The pedagogical model of distance learning that has been developed for the ongoing training of Portuguese magistrates is described and understood as a set of pedagogical assumptions and guidelines for planning, designing, and evaluating the distance training action.

Theorizing the U.S. Supreme Court

We summarize the formal theoretical literature on Supreme Court decision-making. We focus on two core questions: What does the Supreme Court of the United States do, and how can one model those actions; and, what do the justices of the Supreme Court want, and how can one model those preferences? Given the current state of play in judicial studies, these questions then direct this survey mostly to so-called separation of powers (SOP) models, and to studies of a multi-member (“collegial”) court employing the Supreme Court’s very distinctive and highly unusual voting rule.The survey makes four main points. First, it sets out a new taxonomy that unifies much of the literature by linking judicial actions, modeling conventions, and the treatment of the status quo. In addition, the taxonomy identifies some models that employ inconsistent assumptions about Supreme Court actions and consequences. Second, the discussion of judicial preferences clarifies the links between judicial actions and judicial preferences. It highlights the relationships between preferences over dispositions, preferences over rules, and preferences over social outcomes. And, it explicates the difference between consequential and expressive preferences. Third, the survey delineates the separate strands of SOP models. It suggests new possibilities for this seemingly well-explored line of inquiry. Fourth, the discussion of voting emphasizes the peculiar characteristics of the Supreme Court’s voting rule. The survey maps the movement from early models that ignored the special features of this rule, to more recent ones that embrace its features and explore the resulting (and unusual) incentive effects.

Exemplum Habemus: Reflections on the Judicial Studies Board's Specimen Directions

This article examines the increasingly prominent role specimen directions published by the Judicial Studies Board, and even some of the Board's teaching materials, now play in criminal cases. The specimen directions are virtually ignored in the academic literature, yet are symptomatic of those mildly dysfunctional systems that operate with autonomous juries. Evidence abounds that when summing up trial judges lean heavily upon these sometimes flawed materials, that appellate courts make extensive reference to them in their judgments, and that counsel's arguments are often directly shaped by them. Additionally, there is a significant dialogue being conducted between appellate courts and the Board. This article points up the extent to which the specimen directions have come to mediate UK criminal law and criminal evidence.