Judicial decision-making takes a challenging and non-controversial route regarding the degree to which non-legal factors shape judges’ judgments. Even though such laws might provide some arbitration operation while the judge makes the final call, it does not depend entirely on the law. Apart from legality, a critical factor in the judicial system, many other factors like social, political, economic, and personal consciousness are equally crucial. The nature of looking at and weighing up the different reasons behind safeguarding and conserving the existing laws of the land constitutes a critically vital process in the operation of justice.
The social context is a non-legal factor that leads to such a powerful result among judges (Epstein & Knight, 2022). The fact that judges are attached to the same culture as the other community members means they cannot be inoculated against the ruling of the current culture, beliefs, and values of society. For example, while judging topics that are involved in controversies, such as abortion and gay marriage, judges can be sensitive to deep-rooted social beliefs and values. However, they will also be trusted to be unbiased in their judgment.
Political aspects, including regulative aspects, also considerably impact the justice system. Judges’ jobs may be filled in various ways; some may be nominated or elected based on their links to specific political parties (Ono & Zilis, 2022). So, this can result in the introduction of prejudices into their decisions. The political tension brought by government officials and interest groups may affect some rulings by the judiciary. Then, a judge, for instance, appointed by a government that tends to be conservative, might probably rule in favor of laws restricting immigration. At the same time, on the other side, a liberal government might as well appoint its judges, who will most likely rule in favor of immigrant’s rights.
Economic factors weave through proceedings and apply real-world conditions to the decisions made in court (Bystranowski et al., 2021). Distribution justice can be an issue when judges and the economic effects of their decisions are being considered because they judge the interests of some corporations or big financial interests. In the case of a lawsuit against a powerful corporation, the judge may consider the possible impact of the large compensation payment on the company’s market capitalization and overall financial status. Personal prejudices and biases, the hidden causes detrimental to the judicial system, may infringe on the fairness of the courts. Despite their efforts to act objectively, judges have their own opinions and biases that form a bias. Such private prejudices are often veiled from public scrutiny, and they can make jurors consider certain parties in the case and the law itself from a biased perspective.
The legal system must consider these non-legal factors that affect the workability of the principles of justice, fairness, and justice in order for the actual values of the judiciary to be maintained (Opeskin, 2022). One way is to advertise and advocate for diversification and inclusivity in the judiciary. Judges with different kinds of backgrounds and points of view are selected, eliminating the risk of aggregate thinking in the justice system and the effect that personal biases might have on any decision-making.
Additionally, the judicial system should be transparent and accountable because transient non-legal elements also stand a chance of influencing the judges’ decisions. In their rulings, judges should show the path they followed through the legal principles that determined the facts and gave them grounds to arrive at the judgment. Additionally, establishing independent judiciary review and oversight bodies in the system might ensure that judges act according to the law and show fairness when passing a sentence. Educators and trainers for judges may also condition non-legal factor requirements by courses that make the participant aware of unconscious bias and provide tools to fight their influence. Judge education on how their bias may work would give the judges a chance to think critically and effect a change in their judgment that would produce more accurate judgments. However, the law permits courts to enforce their authority and use procedural safeguards against the interference of extralegal considerations to reach a judgment on a case at hand.
In conclusion, non-legal factors as a decision-maker in the process of judicial determination are interesting issues that need an appropriate judgment. An example of this is the various components components components involved, which may include social, political, and economic factors and personality, among others. The judicial decisions may sometimes be biased, outside the natural justice principles of impartiality and fairness. Legal systems should confront this obstacle by expanding the diversity of the judiciary, checking the judicial system’s security and well-being, ensuring the training program is well-developed, and introducing procedural rules. This is aimed at ensuring the judicial system works how it is supposed to and that people’s trust in it is maintained; hence, when analyzing the impact of non-legal factors, our actions are taken into account.
References
Bystranowski, P., Janik, B., Próchnicki, M., & Skórska, P. (2021). Anchoring effect in legal decision-making: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 45(1), 1.https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2021-26899-001.html.
Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (2022). How social identity and social diversity affect judging. Leiden Journal of International Law, 35(4), 897–911. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156522000395.
Ono, Y., & Zilis, M. A. (2022). Ascriptive characteristics and perceptions of impropriety in the rule of law: Race, gender, and public assessments of whether judges can be impartial. American journal of political science, 66(1), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12599.
Opeskin, B. (2022). The Relentless Rise of Judicial Specialisation and its Implications for Judicial Systems. Current Legal Problems, 75(1), 137–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuac006
write