Corruption and the legitimacy of courts: experimental evidence from Brazil

Abstract Judicial institutions across the world face a legitimacy crisis, showing record-low levels of public support. Several studies argue that this increasing distrust in courts stems in part from how judges rule on high-profile corruption cases, but there is no consensus on what shapes public attitudes towards the judiciary. While some studies argue that people care about the substantive outcomes of decisions, others emphasize procedural fairness. To adjudicate between these two perspectives, I drew on an original survey-experiment about a corruption trial in Brazil. Respondents were randomly assigned to read a vignette about a corporate executive convicted of bribery and seeking to overturn his conviction. I manipulated both the procedural irregularities committed by the judge and the outcome of the decision. Results showed that evaluations of courts are shaped primarily by outcomes. When judges overturn convictions of business leaders, they lose support and increase mobilizing attitudes against the court, regardless of the severity of procedural violations. However, some procedural irregularities affected attitudes towards judges. The models showed that judges were viewed as more unethical, unfair, and biased when they advised prosecutors, acted in self-interest, or treated defendants unequally—but not when they overstepped their jurisdiction.