GUILHERME DA FRANCA COUTO FERNANDES DE ALMEIDA
Lattes
ORCID
ScopusProjetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Resumo profissional
Área de pesquisa
Nome para créditos
4 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 4 de 4
Capítulo de Livro The Experimental Jurisprudence of the Concept of Rule: Implications for the Hart-Fuller Debate(2023) GUILHERME DA FRANCA COUTO FERNANDES DE ALMEIDA; Struchiner, Noel; Hannikainen, Ivar R.Artigo Científico Do Formalist Judges Abide By Their Abstract Principles? A Two-Country Study in Adjudication(2021) Bystranowski, Piotr; Janik, Bartosz; Próchnicki, Maciej; Hannikainen, Ivar Rodriguez; GUILHERME DA FRANCA COUTO FERNANDES DE ALMEIDA; Struchiner, NoelRecent literature in experimental philosophy has postulated the existence of the abstract/concrete paradox (ACP): the tendency to activate inconsistent intuitions (and generate inconsistent judgment) depending on whether a problem to be analyzed is framed in abstract terms or is described as a concrete case. One recent study supports the thesis that this effect influences judicial decision-making, including decision-making by professional judges, in areas such as interpretation of constitutional principles and application of clear-cut rules. Here, following the existing literature in legal theory, we argue that the susceptibility to such an effect might depend on whether decision-makers operate in a legal system characterized by the formalist or particularist approach to legal interpretation, with formalist systems being less susceptible to the effect. To test this hypothesis, we compare the results of experimental studies on ACP run on samples from two countries differing in legal culture: Poland and Brazil. The lack of significant differences between those results (also for professional legal decision-makers) suggests that ACP is a robust effect in the legal context.Capítulo de Livro What Do We Mean by Precedent? Empirical Evidence of Ordinary Usage(2022) Andrade, Priscila C. de; GUILHERME DA FRANCA COUTO FERNANDES DE ALMEIDA; Hannikainen, Ivar R.; Struchiner, NoelLegal theorists disagree about the nature of precedent. In a purely descriptive sense, what does it mean to say that a particular case sets a precedent? Does it (a) establish a rule that is deductively applied to subsequent cases (the deductive view), or (b) trace a relevant dimension of factual resemblance between the source case and subsequent cases by analogy (the analogical view)? To answer these questions, we conducted a series of three studies on the matter. In Study 1, we documented people’s tendency to adopt the analogical interpretation over the deductive one. Theorists have also debated whether, normatively, judges ought to apply precedents deductively or analogically—with some arguing that the analogical view affords excessive discretionary power. Yet, the results of Studies 2 and 3 undermine this claim: While participants did indeed infer more specific rules than analogical features (Study 2), the generality of analogical interpretation was not driven by the opportunity to treat prior cases as precedents (Study 3). These findings suggest that the analogical view is prevalent among the folk, while undermining some of the normative arguments against it.Artigo Científico Apply the Laws, if They are Good: Moral Evaluations Linearly Predict Whether Judges Should Enforce the Law(2024) Engelmann, Neele; GUILHERME DA FRANCA COUTO FERNANDES DE ALMEIDA; Sousa, Felipe Oliveira de; Prochownik, Karolina; Hannikainen, Ivar R.; Struchiner, Noel; Magen, StefanWhat should judges do when faced with immoral laws? Should they apply them without exception, since “the law is the law?” Or can exceptions be made for grossly immoral laws, such as historically, Nazi law? Surveying laypeople (N = 167) and people with some legal training (N = 141) on these matters, we find a surprisingly strong, monotonic relationship between people’s subjective moral evaluation of laws and their judgments that these laws should be applied in concrete cases. This tendency is most pronounced among individuals who endorse natural law (i.e., the legal-philosophical view that immoral laws are not valid laws at all), and is attenuated when disagreement about the moral status of a law is considered reasonable. The relationship is equally strong for laypeople and for those with legal training. We situate our findings within the broader context of morality’s influence on legal reasoning that experimental jurisprudence has uncovered in recent years, and consider normative implications.