
doi: 10.1093/bjc/azad033
Abstract Courts in many jurisdictions remain indifferent to criticisms for their overly harsh or unequal treatments. There has been a debate whether this is attributed to judges’ individual dispositions or rather their environments. This article contributes to this debate by offering evidence from Thai courts about their indifference to inequality generated by the wealth-insensitive fine and fine-default custody. It argues that judges are situationally driven to adopt rigid framing about justice when performing duties, as a result of which judges develop indifference to the ‘side-effects’ of their frame-influenced decisions. The findings imply the possibility that the same mechanisms may exist in other jurisdictions and underline the need to address indifference to prevent failure in reforming for a more egalitarian system.
330, Law (General), 301
330, Law (General), 301
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
