The Case for Jurimetrics in Legal Science

working paper

Anton Kwaijtaal
Jurimetrica Academy∗

January 22, 2024

Abstract
In this essay, I advocate for the incorporation of jurimetrical meth-
ods into the realm of legal science to enhance scholarly investigation in
law. I present a framework that underscores the significance of experi-
mental methodologies in legal research, identifying four key domains of
legal study: object, manifestation, instrument, and practice. The de-
liberate separation of the object or its surroundings, a central aspect of
the framework, facilitates manipulation and experimentation—an aspect
gaining relevance amidst the swift societal transformations. The call for
increased utilization of jurimetrical methods is reinforced by the demand
for isolation, experimentation, and control, especially in the context of
contemporary societal acceleration. The essay delves into potential roles
for jurimetrics within the proposed domains of legal study.

1 Introduction
Jurimetrics entails applying quantitative methods, statistics, and infor-
mation science to examine legal systems, processes, and phenomena. It
ought to function as a means to an end—an instrumental approach geared
toward achieving a specific goal by prioritizing the effectiveness of the
method over its intrinsic value. It has the potential to coexist with the
well-established methods that have been successfully utilized in legal sci-
ence for the past centuries. In this essay, I intend to articulate the sig-
nificance of initiating explorations into jurimetrical approaches in legal
science in the present era. My objective is to address the current chal-
lenges within legal science and explain why I think jurimetrical methods
are interesting alternatives to tackle these challenges.
The aim of social science, encompassing legal science, is to enhance
our comprehension of societal dynamics and employ this understanding
for the collective improvement of individuals and society. Without aiming
to be complete, in my opinion: causation, generalization and replication
are three main building blocks of science. While there is much to discuss
∗ www.jurimetricaacademy.com - contact: anton@antonkwaijtaal.com

1
regarding causality, it offers a well-established framework for discerning
genuine explanations from spurious ones, a critical aspect when the aim is
to gain knowledge. Regarding generalization, it is not practically feasible
to study each individual element at all times. Therefore, the ability to
generalize becomes crucial when aiming to apply acquired knowledge to
elements not directly studied. Finally, replication is an integral aspect of
the scientific method, as it plays a vital role in verifying findings for both
reliability and validity.

2 Ceteris paribus
Law plays a foundational role in society, establishing structures, norms,
and mechanisms essential for achieving social stability through the pro-
vision of, at the very least, perceived fairness and equality, and the safe-
guarding of individual and collective interests. It shapes and regulates
the interactions and behaviors of individuals within a community. Law
is intricately connected to various institutional components—economic,
social, and political—in society (macro perspective). Simultaneously, it
exerts influence on personal freedom both in physical and mental dimen-
sions (micro perspective). This underscores the significance of law as a
subject of study, yet, as I will elaborate further, it also poses scientific
challenges.
While recognizing the significance of a holistic perspective, one could
argue that isolating the object of law from macro and micro influences,
although this is very challenging and sometimes even impossible, is impor-
tant for complying with the building blocks of science as described earlier
in this essay. Isolating law helps to establish causal relationships. In the
complex society, isolation is undeniably important for finding causing fac-
tors. In legal science, distinguishing the effect of a specific legal variable
from intervening factors can be a challenge. The presence of multiple dy-
namic factors in legal systems makes it intricate to isolate the impact of a
single variable with as much certainty as possible. Moreover, isolating the
study of law allows scientists to draw generalizations about larger popula-
tions or phenomena. Identifying patterns in isolated conditions facilitates
the formulation of theories or principles that may have broader applica-
bility, i.e. that will also apply with other circumstances. Lastly, in terms
of replication, it should be emphasized that isolation permits replication
by other researchers, because it opens the way to experimental design of
research studies.
”Ceteris paribus” is a Latin phrase that translates to ”all other things
being equal” or ”holding other things constant”. The ceteris paribus prin-
ciple, commonly used in various scientific disciplines, refers to the assump-
tion that all relevant factors or conditions remain constant or unchanged
during the study. In legal science, the ceteris paribus principle is, often-
times implicitly, applied to isolate the impact of a specific legal variable
or concept under consideration. For example, when examining the rela-
tionship between a legal policy and its effects, the ceteris paribus principle
allows legal scholars to focus on the influence of that policy while assuming
that other relevant factors, such as economic conditions or societal atti-

2
tudes, remain constant. Legal scholars implicitly assume that economic
conditions, societal attitudes, and other relevant factors remain relatively
constant during the study. However, the influence of the ceteris paribus
assumption on the reliability of discovered legal scientific knowledge is
contingent upon the actual speed of societal dynamics. When societal
dynamics evolve slowly, the assumption becomes more acceptable.

3 Social acceleration
For the majority of human history, with some notable exceptions dur-
ing revolutionary periods, the pace of societal dynamics has generally
been comparatively slow when contrasted with the rapid changes observed
in the current ”information” age. Throughout much of history, social,
cultural, and economic transformations occurred over extended periods,
shaped by gradual shifts and developments. The information age, char-
acterized by the widespread use of digital technologies, instant communi-
cation, and rapid dissemination of information, has ushered in an era of
unprecedented acceleration in societal dynamics. Changes that once took
generations to manifest can now transpire in a matter of years, months,
or even weeks. In addition to the acceleration of societal dynamics, the
information age has played a pivotal role in further enhancing globaliza-
tion. This acceleration has significant implications for various scientific
fields, including legal science. The faster pace introduces new challenges
in understanding and analyzing legal phenomena, as the assumptions of
constancy inherent in approaches like ceteris paribus may face heightened
scrutiny.
The speeding up of developments in society is often referred to as ”ac-
celeration” or ”social acceleration.” This concept encompasses the idea
that various aspects of societal change, technological progress, cultural
shifts, and economic transformations are occurring at an increasingly
rapid pace. The field of legal science is confronted with the accelera-
tion challenges that can influence its efficacy. Most notably, it grapples
with the heightened complexity of both society and legal systems. This
complexity denotes the expanding intricacies, interconnections, and diver-
sification within contemporary social structures and the associated legal
frameworks. The intricate nature of these systems is shaped by vari-
ous factors, including the increased dynamics in the evolution of norms,
technological advancements (risk society), and globalization of social chal-
lenges. As a result, this complexity presents challenges in the field of legal
science, necessitating a reevaluation of previously effective research meth-
ods.

4 Designing for experiments

Research designs can be evaluated according to their degree of control
(replicability), capacity to establish causation, and the extent to which
findings can be generalized. Among these, experimental design is often
considered the most advantageous. Acknowledging that implicit isola-

3
tion, influenced by social acceleration, may not be scientifically viable in
all scenarios, and recognizing the importance of fundamental elements like
causation, generalization, and replication in scientific inquiry, it becomes
imperative to investigate strategies within legal science that optimize the
utilization of the experimental research design framework. Notably, exper-
imental research design places a strong emphasis on maintaining a high
degree of isolation. In the ensuing sections of this essay, I will present
a conceptual framework for isolation, examine how distinct isolated do-
mains within legal research can contend with the challenges presented by
the acceleration hypothesis, and posit the notion that jurimetrical meth-
ods constitute an additional methodological domain that can augment the
efficacy of legal science.
Within the proposed exploratory framework for isolating legal research
questions, I systematically classify legal science into four distinct domains,
each characterized by unique research objects. In the realm of research, a
”research object” denotes the subject under investigation, serving as the
focal point for inquiry. Researchers scrutinize the characteristics, behav-
iors, or facets of this object to deepen understanding, draw conclusions,
or contribute to knowledge within a specific field. The identified domains
encompass ”law as object,” ”manifestation of law,” ”law as instrument,”
and the ”practice of law,” offering varied perspectives on the essence,
manifestation, and application of law.

4.1 Law as Object

When studying law as an object, the focus is on understanding the funda-
mental role that law plays in constructing and maintaining societies. This
approach involves examining the abstract and conceptual aspects of law,
separated from its manifestations, functions or applications. Researchers
exploring law as an object may investigate the underlying principles, theo-
ries, and philosophical foundations that contribute to the shaping of legal
systems and their impact on societal structures. This inquiry delves into
the theoretical underpinnings of law, norm formation, and its broader im-
plications for social organization, order, and governance. By isolating law
as an object of study, scholars aim to gain insights into the foundational
concepts that shape legal systems and their overarching influence on the
fabric of societies. It pertains to the stance and conduct of both groups
and individuals in the establishment of accepted norms, as well as the ac-
ceptable forms of punishment when these norms are violated. It concerns
distinguishing between what is considered normal and what is deemed
abnormal.
By segregating the examination of law as an object from its mani-
festation, functions, and practices, researchers can employ experimental
design, as this approach involves isolating the object from the complexi-
ties of real-world conditions. Valuable insights can be gained by drawing
upon methodologies used in the fields of cognitive science, behavioral eco-
nomics, and psychology. Given the heightened dynamics in the evolution
of norms, there is a need to acquire more profound scientific knowledge
on how these norms develop and shape societies’ perceptions of normality
and, subsequently, impact decision-making processes and societal stability

4
in general. While it might be feasible to enhance our understanding of
norm formation with limited reliance on mathematical methods, extrap-
olating these insights to future states of the world and uncovering time-
dependent dynamics in more volatile environments becomes challenging
without a mathematical model as a theoretical foundation for the research
endeavor. The utilization of mathematical methods becomes particularly
advantageous in developing predictive models, allowing legal scientists to
anticipate future events, trends, or behaviors based on historical data and
patterns. In the field of Decision Theory, employing models of this nature
is a common practice, as illustrated for example by the Prospect Theory
model.
While conversations in Legal Theory and Philosophy frequently in-
tertwine the notions of law as an object and the manifestation of law,
leading to varied perspectives across different scholarly schools, scholars
have amassed considerable insights into the nature of law as an object.
The necessity to delve into quantitative methods within legal science is
not predominantly prompted by the obstacle of isolation, but rather by
the challenge posed by acceleration. Addressing this challenge in conjunc-
tion with ongoing research endeavors holds the promise of advancing the
domain of legal science.

4.2 Manifestation of Law

The study of the manifestation of law involves an exploration of how law
are implemented, applied, and institutionalized within society. This field
of inquiry delves into the dogmatic aspects of law, examining how legal
codes, precedent and case law is implemented in society. By focusing on
the manifestation of law, legal scientists seek to understand the intricate
interplay between law as-is and its practical realization in the everyday
legal environment. The phrase ”the law is what the law is” generally
conveys the idea that the nature and content of the law are defined by
its existing rules, statutes, and precedents. It suggests a recognition of
the legal positivist perspective, which asserts that the validity of law is
derived from recognized sources of authority, such as legislation and legal
precedents. The primary emphasis of the research lies not on the law itself
but on the implementation and expression of law.
In recent history, the predominant focus of legal science has revolved
around this particular sphere of investigation. This encompasses activities
such as textual analyses, examination of legal precedents, exploration of
legal doctrines, and rule-based reasoning, constituting the core of what
is commonly denoted as legal science. As long as scholars abstain from
tackling inquiries pertaining to the nature or function of law, one could
contend that this field is less susceptible to the influences of the social
acceleration hypothesis. This is attributable to its primary alignment
with the manifestation of law, characterized by a more gradual evolution.
This gradual evolution is ascribed to intentionally prolonged legislative
modification processes and judicious tempering. Moreover, the research
endeavors in this domain aim to comprehend the intricacies and subtleties
inherent in the manifestations of law, rendering qualitative research meth-
ods highly pertinent for this purpose. Therefore, in my perspective, there

5
is a requisite for an augmented emphasis on explicit isolation in research.
Nonetheless, there appears to be limited added value for jurimetrics in
this context.
An analogy may be established between mathematics and Latin, wherein,
akin to the historical importance of Latin, mathematics has the potential
to assume a significant role in the contemporary legal domain. Similar to
Latin’s role as a universal language, inclusive of law, mathematics could
similarly be considered a universal language. Given the increasing glob-
alization of social challenges, adopting a common language in law, such
as mathematics, could substantially reduce interpretation difficulties to a
considerable extent. From this standpoint, jurimetrics could contribute
to this domain within legal science.

4.3 Law as Instrument

Analyzing the law as an instrument highlights its function as a tool or
means to achieve specific objectives, depicting it as a mechanism utilized
for behavior regulation, dispute resolution, the promotion of (utilitarian)
justice, and the attainment of societal goals. In this context, the law
serves as an instrument, distinguishing itself from perspectives that view
law as an object or its manifestation, where the content or form becomes
inconsequential as long as the desired objectives are achieved. Within this
domain of legal research, the emphasis on isolation is crucial. This ap-
proach adopts a ”law as a product” orientation, avoiding the exploration
of what that product is or how it manifests itself in society. Addressing
these diverse questions in a single research endeavor is unfeasible. This
hypothesis reflects a longstanding debate in liability law between scholars
in Economic law and those with a more classical orientation. Asserting
that liability law can be formulated as an optimizing instrument (”law as
instrument”), as advocated by Economic law scholars, does not address
the fundamental question of what liability law is (”law as object”). This
assertion remains valid only under the assumption that law functions ex-
clusively as an instrument, a proposition that is, at the very least, subject
to debate.
The identification of causal relationships holds paramount importance
not only for unveiling instrumental connections but also for the effective
implementation of policies. Through isolating variables, researchers can
establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship, discerning whether alter-
ations in one factor lead to changes in another. This is fundamental
for making accurate predictions, crafting effective policies, and gaining
a deeper understanding of the mechanisms in play. Isolation mitigates
the impact of confounding factors, ensuring that observed effects can be
attributed to the variable under examination, thereby enhancing the re-
liability and validity of research findings. The objective should be to
integrate as much as possible into the domain of experimental research
design, a focus that, one could argue, revolves around the application
of causal inference. This field of study would invariably gain from the
integration of jurimetrical methods, particularly by employing more so-
phisticated statistical techniques than those utilized in studies to enhance
scientific validity. There is potential for progress comparable to the con-

6
tributions that econometrics made to the field of economic sciences.
While oftentimes not explicitly stated, the proficient utilization of law
as an instrument implies a belief in social constructivism—a premise ac-
knowledged as valid but necessitating careful consideration, for example
in the context of the Lucas critique. In this domain, there is not only
space for more comprehensive jurimetrical methods but also for the de-
velopment of additional theories elucidating the interplay between law as
instruments and society’s response to these instruments in which jurimet-
rical methods could play a role.

4.4 Practice of Law

The ”practice of law” involves the study of the use of law in the real-
world. It encompasses the work of legal professionals, including lawyers,
judges, and legal scholars, who engage with the law in various capacities.
Legal practice involves self-education by non-legals, providing legal ad-
vice, arguing cases in court, and participating in legal processes. While
the manifestation of law tends to concentrate on material, content-related
aspects, the practice of law is oriented towards the procedural aspects of
legal practice. Significant research endeavors are dedicated to acquiring an
understanding of the procedural facets of the judicial decision-making pro-
cess. A subset of this research, increasingly adopting quantitative meth-
ods, focuses on predicting future case law rulings. The evolution of legal
analytics and computational law in the late 20th and early 21st centuries
has instigated a transformative shift. These fields harness data analysis,
machine learning, and other mathematical approaches to forecast legal
outcomes. Jurimetrical methods, either through structural or reduced
form models, can be utilized for this purpose. The latter approach is pro-
gressively influenced by machine learning models, for example through
Bayesian inference methods. Despite challenges associated with the bias
in legal data, employing such models necessitates careful consideration
of ethical implications and an understanding of the inherent limitations
in predicting intricate and context-dependent legal decisions. Moreover,
machine learning techniques based on processing lack the capability to
anticipate shifts in norms. Human intervention is crucial to avoid an in-
herent bias towards the existing status quo. The interrogation of these
innovations necessitated a reasonable comprehension of mathematics and
computer science. Even for legal scholars who express reservations regard-
ing these advancements, an investment in jurimetrical methods becomes
imperative to adequately construct a compelling legal argument against
them.

5 Conclusion
Jurimetrics involves the utilization of mathematical and computer science
methodologies within the realm of legal science. Despite being introduced
more than 75 years ago, the discipline struggled to garner significant sup-
port from legal scholars, remaining on the periphery of research endeavors
and frequently receiving limited attention. Presently, computer science

7
methodologies, particularly, are subject to either exaggerated and im-
practical expectations or overly negative depictions from moralists. Both
perspectives, exacerbated by the constrained exposure of legal students
to jurimetrical methods, unjustly impede the potential for jurimetrics to
exert influence within the realm of legal science. In this essay, I have ex-
plored the prospect of integrating jurimetrical methods with established
legal scientific approaches to enhance the caliber of scientific investigation
within the field of law.
The quality of scientific inquiry exists on a continuum, with a pre-
vailing consensus that research leaning towards experimental methods is
associated with a higher perceived status. Experimental methods are in-
tricately connected to the core tenets of scientific investigation, namely
causality, generalizability, and replicability—elements I consider pivotal.
For scientists to enhance the importance of their work, they should strive
to move as much of their research as feasible into the experimental phase.
Hence, it is important for them to endeavor to deconstruct their research
objectives in a manner that aligns with this goal. Achieving this is a chal-
lenging task, requiring an ongoing process of incremental enhancement.
In this paper, I have introduced a framework that, in my view, serves
as valuable input for facilitating this process. The framework encom-
passes four distinct research domains: ”law as object,” ”manifestation of
law,” ”law as instrument,” and the ”practice of law,” providing diverse
perspectives on the nature, expression, and application of law. Upon ex-
amination of this framework, it becomes evident that, as the environment
leans towards greater abstraction/standardization, the object can accom-
modate more detail (”law as object”). Conversely, when the environment
becomes more detailed, it is advisable for the object to assume a more
abstract/standardized form (”practice of law”). The remaining domains
fall along a continuum between these two extremes. This tradeoff be-
tween object and surrounding (environment) encapsulating the essence of
isolation.
Isolation involves the deliberate separation of the object of study from
its surrounding environment, aiming to disrupt interdependence. This
facilitates the manipulation of either the object or the environment, cre-
ating opportunities for experimentation. The significance of isolation be-
comes more pronounced when either the object or the environment un-
dergoes rapid development or movement. In periods of slow dynamics,
such as observed in law throughout much of history, isolation is a less
stringent requirement. The assumption of the ceteris paribus condition
has a relatively low impact on scientific validity. However, with the so-
cial acceleration hypothesis asserting that society and law are undergoing
increasingly rapid changes, isolation and the experimental approach gain
greater importance. The rationale for expanding the utilization of juri-
metrical methods in legal science is reinforced by the dual emphasis on
isolation/experimentation and acceleration, along with, to some extent,
the source of acceleration.
When examining law as an object, characterized by a detailed object
and an abstract surrounding, jurimetrical methods, in the form of quan-
titative models, could prove valuable for modeling law development and
the dynamics of law within society. Such models can serve as a basis

8
for experimentally testable hypotheses. In the context of acceleration,
the significance lies in modeling dynamics and the predictive aspect (in
addition to explanation), acting as a catalyst for the adoption of jurimet-
rical methods. When examining the manifestation of law, which, albeit in
a more confined domain, corresponds with the prevailing dogma-oriented
paradigm in legal science, the potential impact of jurimetrics appears rela-
tively limited. Nevertheless, it can be argued that the growing demand for
legal frameworks extending beyond national boundaries, as seen in issues
such as environmental challenges, might position mathematics as a univer-
sal language akin to the historical role Latin played in the legal domain. In
the context of law as an instrument, where the surrounding environment
becomes more detailed due to the investigation of societal reactions, the
significance of causality and causal inference is heightened. Proficiency
in mathematical methods, including fields like statistics, is crucial in this
domain. There exists an opportunity for legal science to undergo a de-
velopment analogous to the transformative impact econometrics had on
economic science within the law as an instrument framework. Tradition-
ally, legal education places minimal emphasis on these areas, resulting in
scholars from diverse disciplines entering the law as an instrument domain.
Nonetheless, there exists a potential hazard of diminishing focus on the
”Juri” component of jurimetrics, potentially resulting in the creation of
effective instruments that possess a suboptimal fit within the legal system.
In the examination of the pragmatic or institutional facets of law, the legal
object is distinctly defined, focusing on how the environment utilizes the
law. Within this context, there is a growing interest in optimizing legal
processes and exploring legal tech. These innovations are deeply rooted in
mathematical methods. Additionally, there is considerable research atten-
tion directed towards predicting case law rulings using machine learning
techniques. The development and scrutiny of these models necessitate a
profound understanding of jurimetrical methods. Furthermore, the risks,
such as the potential loss of possession (a significant impetus for the ne-
cessity of law), are increasingly influenced by technological and scientific
factors, underscoring the importance of acquiring proficiency in mathe-
matical research methods applied in diverse scientific domains.
In summary, there is a compelling argument for the heightened adop-
tion of jurimetrical methods within legal science. As societal dynamics
evolve and the legal landscape undergoes transformations, it becomes im-
perative for legal science to broaden its array of research methodologies
to effectively address these developments. Embracing jurimetrical meth-
ods not only aligns with the evolving nature of society and law but also
equips legal scholars with versatile tools to explore and comprehend the
intricate facets of contemporary legal phenomena. This adaptability is
crucial for enhancing the relevance and effectiveness of legal research in
an ever-changing socio-legal environment.