Authors
Abstract
What factors affect judicial decision-making? The legal system is of utmost importance because of its impact on our lives. Judges appear to have the most power among any social workers seeing as the precedents set in their decisions are tantamount to written law. Nevertheless, judges may be subject to certain biases, moral and cognitive alike, which influence their rulings. Looking into how morality and cognitive biases affect judges may also reveal how we as individuals handle combining morals with ethics- as well as whether any discrepancies among ourselves are justifiable. An investigation into relevant moral and jurisprudential theories revealed much about the inner workings of a judge’s mindset- whether he or she recognizes it or not. Coupling this with corroborated research on a select few heuristics present specifically for judges sets the foundation for an array of possible solutions in order to ensure the most impartial judicial proceedings. Plausible remedies include conducting premortems, implicit association tests, and a revised ruling procedure.
Keywords morality  moral philosophy  judicial philosophy  jurisprudence  utilitarianism  cognitive biases  cognitive heuristics  justice  equality
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Upload history
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Equality as a Moral Ideal.Harry Frankfurt - 1987 - Ethics 98 (1):21-43.
The History of Utilitarianism.Julia Driver - 2010 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System.Tara Smith - 2015 - Cambridge University Press.
Questioning Judicial Deliberations.Jan Komárek - 2009 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 29 (4):805-826.
Lucky in Your Judge.Jeremy Waldron - 2008 - Theoretical Inquiries in Law 9 (1):185-216.
Judicial Review and the Protection of Constitutional Rights.Sadurski Wojciech - 2002 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22 (2):275-299.
Psychology's Reality Debate: A "Levels of Reality" Approach.Jack Martin & Jeff Sugarman - 1999 - Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 19 (2):177-194.
On The Sufficiency of Legal Arguments.Li Zhao & Ming Yuan - 2007 - Modern Philosophy 2:118-122.
Judicial Can't.Scott J. Shapiro - 2001 - Philosophical Issues 11 (1):530-557.
The Judicial Community.Christopher Kutz - 2001 - Philosophical Issues 11 (1):442-469.
Evidentiary Value: Philosophical, Judicial and Psychological Aspects of a Theory.B. Hansson - 1984 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35 (3):293-296.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-09-19

Total views
205 ( #40,355 of 2,330,100 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
32 ( #19,204 of 2,330,100 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes