ACADEMIA Letters

Jurimetrics: An Introduction
Rashesh Vaidya, Tribhuvan University

I. Introduction
Jurimetrics was first coined by Lee Loevinger[1] in 1949 and introduced in the legal vocab-
ulary in the late fifties. The term was used by academicians during the 1960s to see the law
strictly through an empirical approach. At the same time, the use of computers in law practice
began to revolutionize the areas of legal research, evidence analysis, and data management of
the legal system. The main aim of jurimetrics is to conduct the measurement of the judicial
decisions, work, or judge’s behavior. The concept has emerged from the realistic movement
which does not give priority to laws enacted by the legislative bodies but on the judge’s under-
standing of the law, society, and their psychology. It is also focused on reducing human error
by applying computer technology and symbolic logic in judicial reasoning as well as, fore-
casting the expected legal outcomes. Jurimetrics is concerned with quantitative analysis of
judicial behavior, application of communication and information theory to legal expression,
use of mathematical logic in law, retrieval of legal data by electronic and mechanical means,
and formulation of the calculus of legal predictability.[2]
Nunes[3] viewed jurimetrics as a form of empirical research that relies on a statistical
approach to investigate the law. The distinction between jurisprudence and jurimetrics is
that jurisprudence is concerned with the function of law and the analysis of general juristic
concepts whereas jurimetrics is concerned with the quantitative analysis of judicial behavior,
the application of information theory to legal expression, and the retrieval of legal data by
electronic and mechanical means.[4]
A jurimetrics analysis starts with an extract raw data from courts and organize that data
in a way that can be processed. Most of the raw data is unstructured and written in natural

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Rashesh Vaidya, [email protected]

Citation: Vaidya, R. (2021). Jurimetrics: An Introduction. Academia Letters, Article 1920.
https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1920.

1
language, which stands as a challenge to IT experts. As it requires expertise in law, statistics,
and computer science, jurimetrics is a multidisciplinary field.[5]
Under the jurimetrics research, descriptive statistics such as citation counts, percentile
employed for the description of the type of sources, subject area or citing decisions, age of lit-
erature, etc. could be applied to get an exact numerical interpretation of the results. Similarly,
the bibliographic coupling with network analysis is used to study the relationship between
documents, share references in decisions of the Courts. A measure of centrality, namely;
closeness, betweenness, in-degree and out-degree could be conducted where citations in de-
cisions of the Supreme Court are analyzed with the network analysis.[6]
The concept of the scalogram analysis[7] and sociological background analysis are applied
in jurimetrics. Peck[8] found that the application of scalograms to decisions of the Supreme
Court of Canada might see useful. The concept of probability theory does have a place in
court during legal proceedings, mainly in criminal trials.[9]
The concept of Boolean algebra is applied under jurimetrics to interpret the retrieved data
of the legal system. The symbolic reasoning is followed under Boolean algebra. They are
AND denoted by ‘.’, OR denoted by ‘+’, NOT referred to inverse relation as well as NAND
and NOR gates referred to the sum of two similar values (i.e. 0 and 0 or 1 and 1) is resulted
to ‘1’ and the sum of different values (i.e. 0 and 1 or 1 and 0) is resulted to ‘0’.
From a legal perspective, the concept could be used in similar ways as:

• The statement A=B means statement denotes that A and B are logically equivalent.

• The statement A฀B means the statement denotes considering A or B.

• The statement A฀B means the statement denotes considering both A and B.

• The statement A฀ means the statement is not of A.

Hence, Statements + Facts = Conclusion

Kingston and Kirk [10] put forward that a scientist’s opinion was based on a quantitative
study. Besides some notable exceptions, such as forensic DNA, is still relevant even though a
general model for inference was already put forward by Darboux et al.[11] In a more formal
sense, that model is known in current days as the “Bayesian perspective” to reasoning and
inference in forensic science.
MacCoun[12] found that the mock jury experiments to test hypotheses about causal influ-
ences on jury behavior help to develop theoretical models of the jury deliberation process. He
has stated that because trial juries deliberate in secrecy, legal debates about jury functioning
have relied heavily on anecdote and speculation.

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Rashesh Vaidya, [email protected]

Citation: Vaidya, R. (2021). Jurimetrics: An Introduction. Academia Letters, Article 1920.
https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1920.

2
 Jurimetrics, the empirical study of law, in the information age, has not conquered much
ground in universities or outside. The case prediction will become a reality with better tech-
niques for validation mean a more reliable prediction of new cases.[13]
Jurimetrics is also the science of judicial behavior. Judicial bodies are also comprised of
a human. The ultimate judgment is delivered from the court of law by a human being(s) i.e. a
judge or a panel of judges, linked to human behavior with goal-directed. Thus, while conduct-
ing the jurimetrics research of any judicial system mainly two aspects should be considered;
first the nature of the people which involves the individual difference, selective perception, a
whole person, motivated behavior, desire for involvement, and finally the value of the person
(judge). Secondly, the nature of the organization, which includes the social system as a whole,
mutuality of interest among the stakeholders of the institutions (level of courts), and ethical
treatment within the institution.

II. Importance of Jurimetrics in Legal System

As the concept of jurimetrics deals with the use of information technology in the legal infor-
mation transformation management among the stakeholders, there is an expectation of zero
tolerance in occurring error. The jurimetrician analysis offers a systematic insight into the
factors and decisions that play a role in legal decision making. With the assistance of ju-
rimetrician research, patterns can be identified and defined far more clearly than traditional
methods. Jurimetrics can contribute to the security of society by increasing the transparency
of the legal system, which can be made more predictable as patterns in judicial decisions be-
come more apparent. These elements ensure that jurimetrics increases legal certainty, which
is an important requisite for the security of society.[14]
The main importance of the use of jurimetrics in the legal system are:

• To introduce mathematical, statistical and technology in the judicial system to minimize

error in the decision-making process.

• To construct the expert system in law.

• Time-saving and eradicating biases in decision-making.

• To get the authentic result from the investigations.

Jurimetrics can play a vital role in judicial procedures, in communicating the process with
experts about the statistical evidence by the judicial bodies. But the striking importance of
jurimetrics comes while solving the criminal cases, civil (medical negligence), and family

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Rashesh Vaidya, [email protected]

Citation: Vaidya, R. (2021). Jurimetrics: An Introduction. Academia Letters, Article 1920.
https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1920.

3
cases, the cases related to public planning or the cases related to the issues of the local gov-
ernments.[15]
The Report of the Jurimetrics Committee of the American Association of American Law
Schools (1961) describes their interests in investigating:

• the possible use of programmed self-instructional materials in legal education,

• the use of symbolic logic as an analytic tool for detecting and controlling syntactic
ambiguity in written legal documents,

• the possible use of electronic computers and other methods of automatic data retrieval
as aids in doing legal research,

• the utility of semantics (including general semantics and recent development in linguis-
tics) for improving communication in law,

• the quantitative analysis of various aspects of the legal decision process, and other im-
plications of developments in science for the law.[16]

III. Issues in Uses of Jurimetrics

It is really difficult to apply a specific mathematical or statistical tool to measure the decision
determinants of the judicial bodies. In making a single decision from the court, the law passed
by the legislators, the interpretation differences from the bench or the court, and the lawyer’s
influence in the proceeding. Therefore, the behavioral aspects of the parties involved in pro-
viding the justices are seen highly influenced. This makes complex in conducting both the
qualitative as well as quantitative analysis with a reasonable summary. Therefore following
issues can be faced in applying jurimetrics:

• Personal predilection play a vital role in judicial decisions.

• Difficulty in maintaining in, not eliminating, or eradicating the jurisprudence philoso-

phy or to find the substitute for the necessary human values and norms that are intrinsic
parts of the judicial system.

• An in-depth interpretation and prediction can be achieved from the final decisions or
the reported decisions made by the Supreme Court but it cannot be implemented for the
lower courts.

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Rashesh Vaidya, [email protected]

Citation: Vaidya, R. (2021). Jurimetrics: An Introduction. Academia Letters, Article 1920.
https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1920.

4
 • The gap of knowledge among the policymakers, technocrats, and the judicial bodies
might hinder the inaccurate adaptation of jurimetrics in the legal system.

• Privacy, ethical, and technical issues related to the cases bring an obstacle in the juri-
metrics research.

• Lack of completely computerized records in court with ease accessibility and lack of
quantitative-driven research agendas.

• Difficulty to predict the behavior of an individual rather than of the mass.

• The computer prediction can be feasible only through the use of information of the pre-
decision reported by the court but the majority of the decisions from the lower courts
are unreported.
Kerimov[17] was against the view that the application of cybernetics to social processes
especially dealing with criminal cases, will lead to changes in the class structure of soci-
ety. He argued that cybernetics makes necessary, a careful study of the nature of control, for
working out the most effective machine language, algorithms, programming, and for devel-
oping a logical information machine for solving problems of public law. Similarly, there will
be a need for the cooperation of engineers, mathematicians, psychologists, economists, and
representatives of other sciences field with theoretical and practical workers in the field of
jurisprudence. Tribe[18] has also concluded that by stating that the union of jurisprudence
and statistics would be more dangerous than fruitful.

References
[1] Lee Loevinger, Jurimetrics the Next Step Forward. Jurimetrics. 12, 3 (1971). L. Lo-
evinger, Jurimetrics, the next step forward 33 Minn. L. Rev. 5, 455 (1949).

[2] Edgar A. Jones, Law and electronics: the challenge of a new era: a pioneer analysis of the
implications of the new computer technology for the improvement of the administration
of justice (1962). Also, Lee Loevinger, Jurimetrics: The Methodology of Legal Inquiry,
28 Law & Contemp. Probs. 2, 8 (1963).

[3] Marcelo Nunes, Jurimetrics: A New Social Science in Sixth Brazilian Conference on
Modelling in Insurance and Finance (2013).

[4] Lee Loevinger, Jurimetrics: The Methodology of Legal Inquiry, 28 Law & Contemp.
Probs. 2, 5 (1963).

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Rashesh Vaidya, [email protected]

Citation: Vaidya, R. (2021). Jurimetrics: An Introduction. Academia Letters, Article 1920.
https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1920.

5
[5] Bruna Armonas, Pedro Buck & Vinicius Miana Bezerra, Challenges When Using Juri-
metrics in Brazil—A Survey of Courts, 9 Future Internet 4, 68 (2017).

[6] Jeyshankar -. Ramalingam and Nishavathi E. Mapping the Science of Law: A Jurimetrics
Analysis, Libr. Phil. and Practice. Fall (2018).

[7] Also known as Guttman Scale, developed by L. Guttman in 1944 is a method developed
for evaluating statements or items in a measurement instrument to determine whether it
forms a Guttman scale. Scalogram analysis has a long history in the psychological and
social sciences and has been widely used.

[8] Sidney Raymond Peck, A Behavioural Approach to the Judicial Process: Scalogram Anal-
ysis, 5 Osgoode Hall L.J.1, 28 (1967).

[9] Charles R. Kingston, Probability and Legal Proceedings, 57 J. Crim. L. Criminology &
Police Sci. 93 (1966).

[10] Charles R. Kingston and Paul Leland Kirk, The Use of Statistics in Criminalistics, 55 J.
Crim. L. & Criminology 4 (1964).

[11] Darboux JG, Appell PE, Poincare´ JH. Examen critique des divers syste‘mes ou e´tudes
graphologiques auxquels a donne´ lieu le bordereau. In: L’affaire Dreyfus – La re´vision
du proce‘s de Rennes – Enqueˆte de la chambre criminelle de la Cour de Cassation. Ligue
franc¸aise des droits de l’homme et du citoyen, Paris (1908).

[12] Robert J. MacCoun. Experimental Research on Jury Decision Making, 30 Jurimetrics.

223 (1989).

[13] Richard De Mulder, Kees van Noortwijk and Lia Combrink-Kuiter, Jurimetrics Please!
1 Eur. J. of L. and Tech.1, 165 (2010).

[14] Johanna Visser, Jurimetrics, safety and security, 20 Int’l Rev. of L., Computers & Tech.
1-2, 123 (2006).

[15] The Inns of Court College of Advocacy and Royal Statistical Society, Statistics and prob-
ability for advocates: Understanding the use of statistical evidence in courts and tribunals
51-62(2017).

[16] Layman E. Allen, The American Association of American Law Schools Jurimetrics
Committee Report on Scientific Investigation of Legal Problems, 7 St. Louis U.L.J. 39
Faculty Scholarship Series. 4516 (1962).

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Rashesh Vaidya, [email protected]

Citation: Vaidya, R. (2021). Jurimetrics: An Introduction. Academia Letters, Article 1920.
https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1920.

6
[17] Djangir A. Kerimov, Cybernetics and Soviet Jurisprudence, 28 Law & Contemp. Probs.
1, 76 (1963).

[18] Laurence H. Tribe, Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process, 84
Harv. L. Rev. 6, 1393 (1971).

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Rashesh Vaidya, [email protected]

Citation: Vaidya, R. (2021). Jurimetrics: An Introduction. Academia Letters, Article 1920.
https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1920.