Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Random JusticeOn Lotteries and Legal Decision-Making$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Neil Duxbury

Print publication date: 1999

Print ISBN-13: 9780198268253

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: March 2012

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198268253.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 13 November 2019

Dicing with Justice

Dicing with Justice

Chapter:
(p.85) 4 Dicing with Justice
Source:
Random Justice
Author(s):

Neil Duxbury

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198268253.003.0005

This chapter explores the principal drawbacks which can attach to decision-making by lot. While the disadvantages of deciding by lot are numerous, they can be categorized in terms of four themes: lotteries are blind, are constructed, create uncertainty, and eschew reason. Although the principal disadvantages of randomization provide the framework for discussion, the lottery decision is not presented in a wholly, or even in a particularly, unfavourable light. Just as the advantages of randomized social decision-making tend to be subject to qualification, an examination of the disadvantages of such decision-making often enables us to appreciate more fully the favourable attributes of lotteries. The main argument is that the lottery may provide valuable insights into the nature of, and our assumptions concerning, legal decision-making precisely because we generally consider the notion of a randomized legal decision to be invidious. Non-weighted lottery decisions may offend against commonplace conceptions of justice and adversely affect people's incentives. This chapter also discusses the use of lotteries in child custody adjudication and procedural justice.

Keywords:   lotteries, uncertainty, reason, randomization, legal decision-making, non-weighted lottery decisions, procedural justice, child custody, adjudication

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .