Debiasing Strategies and Judicial Decision-Making: Exploring a Duty to Improve Judges’ Capabilities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60923/issn.2724-6299/22547Keywords:
judicial decision-making, legal reasoning, implicit biases, judicial biases, debiasingAbstract
Judicial decision-making carries profound consequences for individuals and society, with expectations that judges act with objectivity and neutrality. However, traditional legal frameworks assume a rationalist model of reasoning that inadequately addresses implicit biases. While existing legal safeguards target explicit instances of bias, they fail to account for biases that subtly influence judicial perceptions and judgments. This article explores how current legal norms, grounded in a syllogistic model of judicial reasoning, are insufficient to address implicit biases. Drawing on Behavioural Realism, the analysis demonstrates how judges remain susceptible to implicit biases despite their training and commitment to impartiality. The article proposes integrating debiasing interventions into judicial practice, including habit modification, environmental changes, and decision-support tools. It argues that such interventions should be encompassed within judges’ professional duties, making their adoption mandatory under certain conditions.
Downloads
References
Adame B. (2016). Training in the Mitigation of Anchoring Bias: A Test of the Consider-the-Opposite Strategy, in Learning and Motivation, n. 53.
Amaral-Garcia S., Garoupa S. and Grembi V. (2009). Judicial Independence and Party Politics in the Kelsenian Constitutional Courts: The Case of Portugal, in Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, n. 6.
Arkes H. R. (1998). Principles in Judgment/Decision-Making Research Pertinent to Legal Proceedings, in Behavioral Sciences & the Law, n. 7.
Arnold D., Dobbie W. and Hull P. (2020). Measuring Racial Discrimination in Bail Decisions, in NBER Working Paper Series. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/-w26999/w26999.pdf.
Ashton R. H. (1992). Effective Justification and a Mechanical Aid on Judgment Performance, in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, n. 52.
Axt J., Nguyen H. and Nosek B. (2018). The Judgment Bias Task: A Flexible Method for Assessing Individual Differences in Social Judgment Biases, in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, n. 76.
Berry K. (2016). Building a Diverse Branch: A Guide for Judicial Nominating Commissioners, in Brennan Center for Justice, https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publica-tions/Building_Diverse_Bench.pdf.
Bielen S., Marneffe W. and Mocan N. (2021). Racial Bias and In-Group Bias in Virtual Reality Courtrooms, in The Journal of Law & Economics, n. 64.
Bradley A. (2018). The Disruptive Neuroscience of Judicial Choice, in UC Irvine Law Review, n. 9.
Braun R. (2000). The Effect of Time Pressure on Auditor Attention to Qualitative Aspects of Misstatements Indicative of Potential Fraudulent Financial Reporting, in Accounting, Organizations and Society, n. 25.
Breger M. (2019). Making the Invisible Visible: Exploring Implicit Bias, Judicial Diversity, and The Bench Trial, in University of Richmond Law Review, n. 53.
Bystranowski P., Janik B., Próchnicki M. and Skórska P. (2021). Anchoring Effect in Legal Decision-Making: A Meta-Analysis, in Law and Human Behavior, n. 45.
Canale D. and Tuzet G. (2020). La giustificazione della decisione giudiziale (G. Giappichelli Editore).
Chandler J. and Dodek A. (2016). Cognitive Enhancement in the Courtroom, in F. Jotterand and V. Dubljevic (eds.) Cognitive Enhancement (Oxford University Press).
Cho K., Barnes C. and Guanara C. (2017). Sleepy Punishers Are Harsh Punishers: Daylight Saving Time and Legal Sentences, in Psychological Science, n. 28.
Cohen M. (2015). When Judges Have Reasons Not to Give Reasons: A Comparative Law Approach, in Washington & Lee Law Review, n. 72.
Cohen R., Lind A. and Tyler T. (1989). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, in Contemporary Sociology, n. 18.
Consultative Council for European Judges (CCJE) (2010). Magna Carta of Judges (Council of Europe).
Council of Europe (1984). Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as Amended by Protocol No. 11 (Council of Europe).
Council of Europe (2010). Judges: Independence, efficiency and responsibilities, Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 (Council of Europe).
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (2016). Code of Conduct for Members and former Members of the Court of Justice of the European Union (2016/C 483/01). (Court of Justice of the European Union).
Croskerry P., Singhal G. and Mamede S. (2013). Cognitive Debiasing 1: Origins of Bias and Theory of Debiasing, in BMJ Quality & Safety, n. 22.
Danziger S., Levav J. and Avnaim-Pesso L. (2011). Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, n. 108.
Eisenberg M. (2022). Legal Reasoning (Cambridge University Press).
Englich B., Mussweiler T. and Strack F. (2006). Playing Dice with Criminal Sentences: The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts’ Judicial Decision Making, in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, n. 32.
Enough B. and Mussweiler T. (2001). Sentencing Under Uncertainty: Anchoring Effects in the Courtroom, in Journal of Applied Social Psychology, n. 31.
Fitzgerald C., Martin A., Berner D. and Hurst S. (2019). Interventions Designed to Reduce Implicit Prejudices and Implicit Stereotypes in Real World Contexts: A Systematic Review, in BMC Psychology, n. 7.
Flanagan D., Ortiz S. and Alfonso V. (2013). Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment (Wiley).
Forscher P., Lai C., Axt J. et al. (2019). A Meta-Analysis of Procedures to Change Implicit Measures, in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, n. 117.
Franck R. (2008). Judicial Independence Under a Divided Polity: A Study of the Rulings of the French Constitutional Court, 1959-2006, in Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, n. 25.
Garcia-Marques L. and Mackie D. (1999). The Impact of Stereotype-Incongruent Information on Perceived Group Variability and Stereotype Change, in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, n. 77.
Garoupa N. and Grembi V. (2012). Judicial Review and Political Bias: Moving from Consensual to Majoritarian Democracy, available at SSRN Electronic Journal: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2097259.
Garoupa, N., Gomez-Pomar F. and Grembi V. (2013). Judging under Political Pressure: An Empirical Analysis of Constitutional Review Voting in the Spanish Constitutional Court, in Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, n. 29.
Guthrie C., Rachlinski J. and Wistrich A. (2009). The ‘Hidden Judiciary’: An Empirical Examination of Executive Branch Justice, in Duke Law Journal, n. 58.
Guthrie C., Rachlinski J. and Wistrich A. (2007). Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases, in Cornell Law Review, n. 93.
Guthrie C., Rachlinski J. and Wistrich A. (2001). Inside the Judicial Mind, in Cornell Law Review, n. 86.
Haidt J. (2013). Moral Psychology and the Law: How Intuitions Drive Reasoning, Judgment, and the Search for Evidence, in University of Alabama Law Review, n. 64.
Hart H. L. A. (2008). Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law (Oxford University Press).
Heath C., Larrick P. and Klayman J. (1998). Cognitive Repairs: How Organizational Practices Can Compensate for Individual Shortcomings, in Research in Organizational Behaviour, n. 20.
Hogarth R. (2010). Educating Intuition (University of Chicago Press).
Hogarth R., Lejarraga T. and Soyer E. (2015). The Two Settings of Kind and Wicked Learning Environments, in Current Directions in Psychological Science, n. 24.
Hutcheson J. (1929). The Judgment Intuitive: The Function of the ‘Hunch’ in Judicial Decision, in Cornell Law Journal, n. 14.
Jolls C. and Sunstein C. (2006). Debiasing through Law, in The Journal of Legal Studies, n. 35.
Kahneman D., Sibony O. and Sunstein C. (2021). Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment (Little, Brown Spark).
Kang J. (2023). Judicial Behavioural Realism about Implicit Bias, in R. Hollander-Blumoff (ed.), Research Handbook in Psychology and Law (Edward Elgar).
Kang J. (2021). What Judges Can Do about Implicit Bias, in Court Review, n. 57.
Kaufman A. (2021). The Precipitous Decline in Reasoning and Other Key Abilities with Age and Its Implications for Federal Judges, in Journal of Intelligence, n. 9.
Kaufman A., Salthouse T., Scheiber C. and Chen H. (2016). Age differences and educational attainment across the lifespan on three generations of Wechsler adult scales, in Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, n. 34.
Keinan G. (1987). Decision Making under Stress: Scanning of Alternatives under Controllable and Uncontrollable Threats, in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, n. 52.
Lai C., Marini M., Lehr S. et al. (2014). Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions, in Journal of Experimental Psychology General, n. 143.
Landes W. and Posner R. (2009). Rational Judicial Behavior: A Statistical Study, in Journal of Legal Analysis, n. 1.
Larrick R. (2004). Debiasing, in D. Koehler and N. Harvey (eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (Blackwell).
Leibovitch A. (2021). Institutional Design and the Psychology of the Trial Judge, in B. Brożek, J. Hage and N. Vincent (eds.), Law and Mind (Cambridge University Press).
Leiter B. (2005). American Legal Realism, in M. Golding and W. Edmundson (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory (Wiley).
Lidén M., Gräns M. and Juslin P. (2019). ‘Guilty, No Doubt’: Detention Provoking Confirmation Bias in Judges’ Guilt Assessments and Debiasing Techniques, in Psychology, Crime & Law, n. 25.
Liu Z. (2018). Does Reason Writing Reduce Decision Bias? Experimental Evidence from Judges in China, in The Journal of Legal Studies, n. 47.
Llewellyn K. (1931). Some Realism about Realism: Responding to Dean Pound, in Harvard Law Review, n. 44.
Maroney T., Swenson D., Bibelhausen J. and Marc D. (2023). The State of Judges’ Well-Being: A Report on the 2019 National Judicial Stress and Resiliency Survey, in Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law, n. 107.
Matthews M. and Stretanski M. (2024). Pilot Medical Certification (StatPearls Publishing).
Miles T. and Sunstein C. (2008). The New Legal Realism, in University of Chicago Law Review, n. 75.
Miller A. (2019). Expertise Fails to Attenuate Gendered Biases in Judicial Decision-Making, in Social Psychological and Personality Science, n. 10.
Mitchell G. (2002). Why Law and Economics’ Perfect Rationality Should Not Be Traded for Behavioural Law and Economics’ Equal Incompetence, available at SSRN Electronic Journal: https://ssrn.com/abstract=306562.
Mussweiler T., Strack F. and Pfeiffer T. (2000). Overcoming the Inevitable Anchoring Effect: Considering the Opposite Compensates for Selective Accessibility, in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, n. 26.
Nisbett R. (1993). Rules for Reasoning (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
Oeberst A. and Goeckenjan I. (2016). When Being Wise after the Event Results in Injustice: Evidence for Hindsight Bias in Judges’ Negligence Assessments, in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, n. 22.
Pignatiello G., Martin R. and Hickman R. (2020). Decision Fatigue: A Conceptual Analysis, in Journal of Health Psychology, n. 25.
Rachlinski J. and Wistrich A. (2021). Benevolent Sexism in Judges, in San Diego Law Review, n. 58.
Rachlinski, J., Wistrich A. and Guthrie C. (2015). Can Judges Make Reliable Numeric Judgments? Distorted Damages and Skewed Sentences, in Indiana Law Journal, n. 90.
Rachlinski J., Johnson S., Wistrich A. and Guthrie C. (2009). Does Unconscious Racial Bias Affect Trial Judges?, in Notre Dame Law Review, n. 84.
Rassin E. (2020). Context Effect and Confirmation Bias in Criminal Fact Finding, in Legal and Criminological Psychology, n. 25.
Reese E. (2012). Techniques for Mitigating Cognitive Biases in Fingerprint Identification, in UCLA Law Review, n. 59.
Sanna L. and Schwarz N. (2003). Debiasing the Hindsight Bias: The Role of Accessibility Experiences and (Mis)Attributions, in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, n. 39.
Schauer F. (2009). Thinking like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning (Harvard University Press).
Segal J. and Spaeth H. (2002). The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited (Cambridge University Press).
Shroff R. and Vamvourellis K. (2022). Pretrial Release Judgments and Decision Fatigue, in Judgment and Decision Making, n. 17.
Soll J., Milkman K. and Payne J. (2015). A User’s Guide to Debiasing, in G. Keren and G. Wu (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (Wiley & Sons).
Spamann H. and Klöhn L. (2016). Justice Is Less Blind, and Less Legalistic, than We Thought: Evidence from an Experiment with Real Judges, in The Journal of Legal Studies, n. 45.
Thaman S. (2019). Appeal and Cassation in Continental European Criminal Justice Systems: Guarantees of Factual Accuracy, or Vehicles for Administrative Control?, in D. Brown, J. Turner and B. Weisser (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process (Oxford University Press).
Torres L. and Williams J. (2022). Tired Judges? An Examination of the Effect of Decision Fatigue in Bail Proceedings, in Criminal Justice and Behavior, n. 49.
United Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2002). The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (United Nations).
Van Brussel S., Timmermans M., Verkoeijen P. and Paas F. (2020). ‘Consider the Opposite’: Effects of Elaborative Feedback and Correct Answer Feedback on Reducing Confirmation Bias, in Contemporary Educational Psychology, n. 60.
Wistrich A. and Guthrie C. (2005). Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding, in University of Pennsylvania Law Review, n. 153.
Wistrich, A. and Rachlinski J. (2017). Implicit Bias in Judicial Decision Making: How It Affects Judgment and What Judges Can Do About It, available at SSRN Electronic Journal: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2934295.
Zenker F. (2021). De-Biasing Legal Factfinders, in F. Zenker (ed.), Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford University Press).
Zenker F., Dahlman C. and Sarwar F. (2015). Reliable Debiasing Techniques in Legal Contexts? Weak Signals from a Darker Corner of the Social Science Universe, in Psychology of Argument, n. 59.
Zenker F., Dahlman C., Bååth R. and Sarwar F. (2018). Reasons Pro et Contra as a Debiasing Technique in Legal Contexts, in Psychological Reports, n. 121.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Giovana Peluso Lopes
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
