RT info:eu-repo/semantics/article
T1 Measuring popular and judicial deliberation: A critical comparison
A1 Bello Hutt, Donald Emerson
AB This article compares instruments designed to measure deliberation in judicial and non-judicial settings. I thus provide a critical examination of different mechanisms deliberative democrats have designed to test what transpires when individuals deliberate from the perspective of ordinary citizens vis-à-vis the point of view of judges. From this appraisal, I conclude, first, that an examination of the literature on deliberation measurement brings to light several problems in the process of translating ideal deliberative theory into empirical evaluative schemes. Second, by relying on a critical examination of Conrado Hübner Mendes’s work on deliberation in constitutional courts, I argue that that those difficulties become starker when we try to assess the quality of judicial deliberation, given that our access to the courtroom is limited by the very structure of judicial procedures. Third, I argue that these two problems combined entail that idealizations of the courtroom as the forum in which ideal aspects of deliberative democracy are instantiated, are misguided, and should be avoided.
SN 1474-2640
YR 2018
FD 2018
LK https://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/82780
UL https://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/82780
LA spa
NO International Journal of Constitutional Law, Octubre 2018, 16, 4, 1121–1147
DS UVaDOC
RD 20-feb-2026