{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01819620253164557, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00949367088607595, 'mean_word_length': 4.966981132075472, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Law andEthics (Vagueness in the Law)

In their focus on adjudicatory proceedings, the authors are interested in judges’ assumed special capacities related to their control of their subjective reactions to potentially biasing material. The authors studies 88 judges attending a session of the annual Ohio Judicial Conference held in 1992, and 104 jurors drawn from members of the Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Common Pleas Court jury pool who volunteered to participate while waiting to be called to jury duty. All study participants were randomized to receive one of three versions of a product liability case (group 1: no exposure to biasing material; group 2: exposure with a judicial decision to exclude the material, and group 3: exposure with a judicial decision to admit the material). The product-liability case involved a man who had used a gasoline container-containing fuel for his lawn mowerto start a fire to burn leaves he had gathered while raking his lawn. The man claimed that a sheet of flame had run up the pouring stream of gasoline into the gasoline container, which had exploded, leaving him with burns. At issue was whether the company had produced a hazardously defective product because the product had no flame arrester to prevent flashbacks such