| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
186615
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the impact of live broadcast of trials on the behavior of trial participants and court decisions, which is a fundamental question raised by the United States Supreme Court in Estes v. Texas in 1965, but has largely been ignored by the advocates of China's recent initiative to promote and support live broadcast of trials. Using data collected from a court in China, we compare trials with and without live broadcasting. We find that trial participants' rate of speech (average speaking speed measured in words per minute) is slower in the presence of live broadcast, suggesting that they are more cautious. We do not find evidence that live broadcasting influences court decisions or judgments in civil or criminal cases. Our results provide preliminary evidence that live broadcasting makes trial participants more accountable and that it does not influence the fairness of trials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
186725
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The mass publicity of court decisions in China, this article argues, is part of the larger trend of the Chinese judiciary becoming increasingly centralized. The transparency reform enables the Supreme People’s Court to control the information reporting process within the judicial hierarchy and rein in local courts through public scrutiny. Interestingly, local courts responded strategically, making disclosure far poorer than required. Meanwhile, the central government has dispatched more cadres to local courts, and these cadres are associated with more than a 10 percent higher disclosure rate of judicial decisions, suggesting that centralization of personnel is adopted to effectively implement the centralized policy. The transparency reform, coinciding with reforms in other domains, embodies an important shift toward a more centralized judicial sector in China.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
165604
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
is article discusses the online disclosure rates of Chinese court decisions, a measure of judicial transparency, based on a study of over 40
million court decisions disclosed on the designated website of the
Supreme People’s Court of China between 2008 and 2016. We tested
the online disclosure rates in various provinces against three determinants of government transparency suggested by existing theories:
authority, market development level, and public trust in the judiciary.
e results suggest that authority plays a decisive role, and the level of
market development a limited role, in improving judicial transparency.
We reject in part the hypothesis that public trust improves judicial
transparency, or vice versa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|