The Devil We Know: Legal Precedent and the Preservation of Injustice

IF 3.4 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Erin P. Hennes, Layla Dang
{"title":"The Devil We Know: Legal Precedent and the Preservation of Injustice","authors":"Erin P. Hennes, Layla Dang","doi":"10.1177/2372732220980757","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A hallmark feature of the common law tradition is reliance on past decisions, or precedent, to resolve legal ambiguity and ensure consistency across similar cases. Yet the intent of precedent—to safeguard equity—may be undermined by nonconscious psychological processes. The behavioral and brain sciences show that decision-making can be contaminated by a human proclivity (endemic among both judges and laypeople) to justify and legitimize extant societal arrangements. Examples from case law and empirical legal studies illustrate how precedent may impede social justice in ways that are predictable from psychological theory. Highlighted in particular are barriers to justice disproportionately encountered by members of historically disadvantaged groups. The article closes with a discussion of opportunities for institutional reform and a call for continued scholarship examining the prevalence and impact of status-quo-maintaining biases in the legal system.","PeriodicalId":52185,"journal":{"name":"Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences","volume":"8 1","pages":"76 - 83"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2372732220980757","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732220980757","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A hallmark feature of the common law tradition is reliance on past decisions, or precedent, to resolve legal ambiguity and ensure consistency across similar cases. Yet the intent of precedent—to safeguard equity—may be undermined by nonconscious psychological processes. The behavioral and brain sciences show that decision-making can be contaminated by a human proclivity (endemic among both judges and laypeople) to justify and legitimize extant societal arrangements. Examples from case law and empirical legal studies illustrate how precedent may impede social justice in ways that are predictable from psychological theory. Highlighted in particular are barriers to justice disproportionately encountered by members of historically disadvantaged groups. The article closes with a discussion of opportunities for institutional reform and a call for continued scholarship examining the prevalence and impact of status-quo-maintaining biases in the legal system.
《我们知道的魔鬼:法律先例和维护不公正》
普通法传统的一个标志性特征是依赖过去的决定或先例来解决法律歧义,并确保类似案件的一致性。然而,先例的意图——保护公平——可能会被非意识的心理过程所破坏。行为科学和脑科学表明,决策可能会受到人类倾向的污染(法官和非专业人士中普遍存在),即为现有的社会安排辩护并使其合法化。判例法和实证法律研究的例子说明了先例如何以心理学理论可以预测的方式阻碍社会正义。特别突出的是,历史上处于不利地位的群体成员在伸张正义方面遇到了不成比例的障碍。文章最后讨论了机构改革的机会,并呼吁继续研究法律体系中维持现状偏见的普遍性和影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences Social Sciences-Public Administration
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信