Week 1

Week 1: Beroepsethiek voor juristen. Een inleiding

Readings:

  • H. Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, London: Penguin Books 2006, p. 287-288, p. 293-298.
  • B. Engelen en M Sie, ‘Why Ethical Reflection Matters: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy’, in M. Sie & B. Engelen (red.), Second Thoughts. First Introductions to Philosophy, Open Press TiU 2021, https://doi.org/10.26116/secondthoughts-sie-engelen-openpresstiu-2021-3.
  • D. Enoch, ‘Why I am an Objectivist about Ethics (And Why You Are, Too)’, in: Russ Shafer-Landau (red.), The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Contemporary Moral Problems, Oxford: Oxford University press 2014. (bewerkt)
  • R. Wasserstrom, ‘Roles and Morality’, in: D. Luban (red.), The Good Lawyer. Lawyers’ Roles and Lawyers’ Ethics, Totowa: Rowman & Allanheld 1983, p. 25-38.

Week 2: De kernwaarden van de rechter

Readings:

  • E. Bauw, D.J.B. de Wolff, M.E. de Meijer & M. Westerveld, Togadragers in de rechtsstaat, Den Haag: Boom juridisch 2022, hoofdstuk 2, paragrafen 2.5. t/m 2.6.
  • J. Wistrich en J.J. Rachlinski, ‘Implicit bias in judicial decision making. How it affects judgment and what judges can do about it’, in: S. Redfield (red.), Enhancing Justice: Reducing Bias, Chicago: American Bar Association Press 2017, p. 87-126.
  • R. Lee, ‘Judging Judges: Empathy as the Litmus Test for Impartiality’, University of Cincinnati Law Review (82) 2014, afl. 1, p. 145-206 (bewerkt).

Week 3: De kernwaarden van de advocaat

Readings:

  • E. Bauw, D.J.B. de Wolff, M.E. de Meijer & M. Westerveld, Togadragers in de rechtsstaat, Den Haag: Boom juridisch 2022, hoofdstuk 3, paragrafen 3.3 t/m 3.5.
  • I. van Domselaar, ‘Een eerlijke deal? Over ethisch minimalisme in de corporate advocatuur’, Ars Aequi 2017, afl. 11, p. 902-910.
  • C. Parker, ‘A critical morality for lawyers: four approaches to lawyers’ ethics’, Monash University Law Review (30) 2004, afl. 1, p. 49-74.

Week 4: De kernwaarden van de officier van justitie

Readings:

  • E. Bauw, D.J.B. de Wolff, M.E. de Meijer & M. Westerveld, Togadragers in de rechtsstaat, Den Haag: Boom juridisch 2022, hoofdstuk 4, paragrafen 4.4 t/m 4.6.
  • R. M. Cassidy, ‘Character and context: what virtue theory can teach us about a prosecutor's ethical duty to ‘seek justice’’, Notre Dame Law Review (82) 2006, afl. 2. (bewerkt)

Week 5: De kernwaarden van de overheidsjurist en digitalisering in de rechtspraktijk

Readings:

  • H. Arendt, ‘Persoonlijke verantwoordelijkheid onder een dictatuur’, in: J. Kohn (red.) en M. Stoltenkamp (vert.), Verantwoordelijkheid en oordeel, Rotterdam: Lemniscaat 2022, p. 69-96. (bewerkt)
  • M. A. P. Bovens, Verantwoordelijkheid en organisatie: Beschouwingen over aansprakelijkheid, institutioneel burgerschap en ambtelijke ongehoorzaamheid, Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink 1990, p. 183-219. (bewerkt)
  • Gedragscode Integriteit Rijk + Nieuwe ambtseed rijksambtenaren
  • T. Sourdin, ‘Judge v Robot? Artificial intelligence and judicial decision-making’, University of New South Wales Law Journal (41) 2018, afl. 4, p. 1114-1133.

Week 6: Diversiteit in de rechtspraktijk

Readings:

  • J.P. McBrayer, ‘What is Diversity? And Why Is It Valuable?’, Quillette 6 oktober 2021.
  • S. van der Raad, Othering and Inclusion of Ethnic Minority Professionals: A Study on Ethnic Diversity Discourses, Practices and Narratives in the Dutch Legal Workplace (diss. Amsterdam VU; Research and graduation internal): VU University Press 2015. (bewerkt).
  • R.C. Hunter, ‘More than Just a Different Face? Judicial Diversity and Decision-making’, Current Legal Problems (68) 2015, afl. 1. (bewerkt)

Week 7: (Professionele) integriteit in de weerbarstige praktijk

Readings:

  • E. Bauw, D.J.B. de Wolff, M.E. de Meijer & M. Westerveld, Togadragers in de rechtsstaat, Den Haag: Boom juridisch 2022, paragraaf 2.6.5, 3.4.2.3, 4.5.2.
  • D. Luban, ‘Integrity. Its causes and cures’, Fordham Law Review (72) 2003, afl. 2. (bewerkt)
  • G. Postema, ‘Self-Image, integrity and professional responsibility’, in: David Luban (ed.), The Good Lawyer: Lawyers’ Roles and Lawyers’ Ethics, Totowa: Rowman and Allanheld 1983. (bewerkt)

Implicit Bias in Judicial Decision Making: How It Affects Judgment and What Judges Can Do About It

Key Points

  • Empirical research indicates that judges, like jurors and lawyers, possess implicit biases.
  • Evidence of implicit bias in judges includes scores on the Implicit Association Test (IAT), experimental results, and archival analysis of litigation outcomes.
  • Judges are generally good decision-makers but tend to rely too heavily on their intuition.
  • Implicit bias and overreliance on emotion/intuition can lead to errors in judgment and exacerbate ingroup preferences.
  • Practical steps can be taken to reduce the risk of implicit biases tainting judicial decisions.

Main Ideas

  • Judges, like most people, have two decision-making styles: intuitive (System 1) and deliberative (System 2). System 1 is rapid, effortless, and outside conscious awareness, while System 2 is slower, conscious, and requires effort.
  • Judges commonly get the bat-and-ball question wrong, indicating a reliance on System 1 thinking even when it leads to errors.
  • Anchoring, the excessive reliance on numeric reference points, influences judges' decisions on damage awards, criminal sentences, and fines.
  • Judges find it difficult to ignore inadmissible evidence, leading to potentially biased decisions.
  • Emotions, despite being usually denied, can influence judges' judgments. Sympathetic litigants can induce more favorable rulings.
  • Judges exhibit ingroup bias, favoring parties from their home states and showing different treatment based on litigants' race and gender.
  • IAT testing reveals that judges harbor similar implicit biases to lay adults regarding African-Americans.

Reducing Unconscious Bias

Strategies Targeting Implicit Bias Directly:
  • Exposure to Stereotype-Incongruent Models: Displaying diverse role models in courthouses.
  • Testing and Training: Using IATs to raise awareness of implicit biases and providing targeted training.
  • Auditing: Evaluating decisions of individual judges for patterns indicative of implicit bias.
Strategies Targeting Implicit Bias Indirectly:
  • Reduce Time Pressure: Giving judges more time to make decisions.
  • Opinion Writing: Requiring judges to write opinions more often to promote careful deliberation.
  • Training and Feedback: Ongoing judicial education and peer review process.
  • Scripts, Checklists, and Multifactor Tests: Structuring decision-making.
  • Mindfulness Meditation: Training to reduce automatic associations and enhance emotional regulation.
  • Consider-the-Opposite: Explaining alternate outcomes.
  • Perspective Taking: Adopting the viewpoint of other individuals to examine the scenario.
  • Foster Diversity in Private Life: Enhancing diversity outside the courthouse.
  • Creating a Constructive Courtroom Environment: Attractive courthouse art and architecture that reflect respect for the law, inspiration, and fairness.
  • Reminders of Professional Norms: Periodic reminders and public reaffirmation of key professional norms.

Judging Judges: Empathy as the Litmus Test for Impartiality

Key Arguments:

  • Judicial impartiality requires judicial empathy.
  • Empathy means understanding the perspectives of others, including those different from the judge.
  • Empathy helps counteract unconscious bias.