Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article investigates the role of citizen political affinities in shaping attitudes towards judicial decisions in corruption cases involving politicians. Although emerging research suggests that decisions regarding a high‐ranking politician can reduce general citizen trust in courts, there is no systematic evidence examining how political affinities differentially affect confidence in court decisions depending on the accused politician. We conducted a survey experiment during a 2022 presidential election rally in Brazil at a time of heightened affective polarization and corruption. We presented respondents with vignettes detailing a fictional corruption scheme and trial outcomes (acquittal or conviction) involving key political figures, including Presidents Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Jair Bolsonaro. The results indicate that when a court decision is consistent with citizens' electoral preferences, they are more inclined to trust the court decision and vice versa.

This paper examines the ways in which illiberal and unreasonable views can be legitimately contained in a politically liberal society, and discusses some of the pressing reasons to undertake, or abstain from, such measures. Theoretical background for the discussion is provided by Rawlsian political liberalism. The paper focuses on the particular justification for the preventive containment of unreasonable views offered by Jonathan Quong (2011). It is claimed that Quong's approach raises some significant worries (not unrelated to the 'third-order pathologies' discussed above in Chapter 2). The suggestion is put forward that political liberals would do well to pay more attention to respect and relations of recognition.

Shipping list no.: 96-0140-P. ; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. ; Mode of access: Internet.