Neele Engelmann (Max Planck Society for the Advancement of the Sciences - Max Planck Institute for Human Development), Guilherme Almeida (Insper), Felipe Oliveira de Sousa (University of Edinburgh), Karolina Prochownik (Ruhr University of Bochum), Ivar Hannikainen (University of Granada), Noel Struchiner (PUC-Rio), and Stefan Magen (University of Bochum) have published "Is there a duty to apply immoral laws?" on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
What should judges do when faced with immoral laws? Should they apply them without exception, since “the law is the law”? Or can exceptions be made for grossly immoral laws, such as historically, Nazi law? Surveying laypeople (N = 167) and people with some legal training (N = 141) on these matters, we find a surprisingly strong, monotonic relationship between people’s subjective moral evaluation of laws and their judgments that these laws should be applied in concrete cases.
This tendency is most pronounced among individuals who endorse Natural Law (i.e., the legal-philosophical view that immoral laws are not valid laws at all), and is attenuated when disagreement about the moral status of a law is considered reasonable. The relationship is equally strong for laypeople and for those with legal training. We situate our findings within the broader context of morality’s influence on legal reasoning that experimental jurisprudence has uncovered in recent years, and consider normative implications.
Comments