Convention All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs. Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: The Law and Society Association URL: http://www.lawandsociety.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p95680_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Vandervort, Lucinda. "Judicial Impartiality, Bias, and the Engendered Decision-Maker" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Law and Society Association, Jul 04, 2006 <Not Available>. 2009-05-25 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p95680_index.html>

Vandervort, L. , 2006-07-04 "Judicial Impartiality, Bias, and the Engendered Decision-Maker" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Law and Society Association <Not Available>. 2009-05-25 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p95680_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Abstract: Social diversity and the complex relationships it entails pose significant challenges to traditional assumptions about judicial impartiality. Gender, race, ethnicity, religion, and language, all interact to shape individual experience and social knowledge and ignorance. Decision-makers are therefore at significant risk of actual bias or apprehended bias. Obvious questions arise. Is it actually possible for individual decision-makers to be and be seen to be unbiased and impartial? Diversifying the judiciary and developing education programs to increase judicial awareness of the significance of social and cultural context are common mainstream responses to the proposition that social knowledge shapes decision-making. Evidence that further measures are needed, however, is seen in backlash against judges who were appointed to bring new perspectives to the bench and in the patent errors and expressions of bias in some judgments by judges whose social and cultural formation is representative of traditional mainstream societies and in those by judges shaped by experience on the margins. No one can always see every issue clearly from all perspectives. To move beyond this impasse judges need to develop a renewed understanding of the nature of adjudication and tools and methods designed to facilitate sound performance of the judicial task as redefined. In this paper (2006, Baltimore) I analyze the problem and propose provisional approaches to foment discussion and point in the direction of some solutions. In the subsequent paper (2007, Berlin) I will revisit these issues in light of the work undertaken by this collaborative research network during the intervening year.

Voice in complex decision making: the effects of procedural voice on trust in decision makers and acceptance of decisions.

Judicial Influence on the Executive Branch: How the Prospect of Judicial Review Shapes Bureaucratic Decision Making

Pivot Players in the Federal Judicial Nomination Process as Predictors of Judicial Decision-Making