header-logo header-logo

The Neuberger Experiment

14 August 2013 / Erika Rackley , Erika Rackley
Issue: 7573 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail
manwoman

Do female judges change the substance of decision-making, asks Erika Rackley

Is it possible to isolate the potential impact of gender, as distinct from any other identity characteristic, in any given judgment?

While few would argue against the importance of a diverse judiciary, the view that the inclusion of different perspectives on the bench would alter—let alone enrich—the substance and quality of judicial decision-making, remains controversial.

One reason for this is that there have been doubts as to how, if at all, the identity characteristics of any given judge affect how they judge, and still less whether any potential differences can be correlated and corroborated across gender, ethnicity, etc. Even if we are agreed that, on balance, it is likely that gender makes some difference to judicial decision-making, we might think that until we can demonstrate how women and men differ in their judging, arguments for increasing diversity on this basis cannot get off the ground. But how might we prove this?

The Neuberger Experiment

In May 2013, BBC Radio 4’s

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Employment law team strengthened with partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

Corporate solicitor joins as partner in Birmingham

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Corporate director with expertise in creative industries joins mergers and acquisitions team

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll