Psychological mechanisms in criminal justice: Deconstructing objectivity

ABOUT THE PROJECT

Human cognition has evolved through time adapting to the various, mostly survivalist needs of humans in their various historical settings. The complexity and dangers of the outer world have caused the brain to adapt decision-making strategies to be efficient in terms of both time and energy consumption. This has led to a two-tier reality of human decision-making that, on the one hand, facilitates faster and more energy-efficient responses when such responses are needed, and on the other hand, allows for slower and more deliberate decisions in different circumstances (Kahneman’s systems 1 and 2 respectively). However, the time- and energy-saving decision-making is less than perfect and often leads to mistakes in judgment. These have been studied in various contexts (see e.g. authors like Kahneman, Ariely, Thaler, Sunstein) and might be more or less harmful in our everyday lives, but are most alarming in settings that require deliberate decisions upon which people’s well-being, status and future in society depend.

Decision-making in legal settings is one such problematic area, made worse by the illusion of neutrality, with which the law veils itself in order to function and preserve the image of objectivity in society. Potential effects of stereotypes and prejudice in the criminal justice system (or for that matter, in any legal context) is an extremely sensitive topic that has been well under-researched. Contemporary scholars have slowly been lifting that veil, revealing a very human background characterised by deliberate and meticulous decision-making one would expect on the one hand, but absent-minded and biased decisions one would not expect and especially not welcome as well (see e.g. authors Guthrie, Rachlinski, Wistrich, Isaacs, Englich, Mussweiler, Strack).

Decision-making throughout criminal justice is plagued by “mistakes” that often arise out of unconscious bias (Benforado) and can be easily explained by using well-known psychological concepts, such as stereotyping and cognitive biases. Judicial decision-making seems particularly emblematic as it carries the strongest sense of objectivity and has arguably the most profound consequences for individual people’s lives. Scientific evidence on how strongly various psychological mechanisms play out in the courtroom is scarce and often contradictory. It has, however, become evident, that courtrooms are by far not immune to mistakes in judgment that arise from psychological characteristics rather than legal considerations. The existing body of research, however, comes mostly from Anglo-American criminal-law systems and focuses on jury decision-making. Studies on professional judges and other professional decision-makers are very rare generally and almost non-existent in the field of stereotyping and prejudice in particular. Therefore, the findings of this research may, on the one hand, bring important new insights on this issue and, on the other hand, pave the way for further research on similar psychological mechanisms influencing other legal professionals in other legal and administrative areas.

Founders: ARRS Partner: Pravna fakulteta Period: 2019 – 2022