Thursday 29 October 2009
week 2/3
Due to strikes in our University we didn’t have lecture on week 2... I was actually looking forward for this lecture as I wasn’t aware of which journal I was supposed to read ( as I mentioned in my other post I missed first lecture) ... I managed to download Dhami’s report regarding Psychological Models of Professional Decision Making ( fortunately some of the students who missed first lecture have read the same report and we managed to form a group) . The main aim of the report was to test out whether judges use simple heuristics (matching heuristics /fast and frugal heuristics) or a more complex model (Franklins rule) on their decision making. One would suppose that judges take into consideration as many cues as they can prior to their decision making...or at least that is what its expected from a judicial decision, that the information regarding a case is thoroughly taken into account, weighted and combined so a fair and accurate decision can be drawn. Unfortunately that is not always the case, judges tend to base their decision on one or few cues due to time constrains maybe as well as the reliance on the decisions made by police and previous benches. Coming back to the report, the study conducted by Dhami suggests that judges don’t follow the ideals of due process therefore matching heuristics better predicted judge’s decision making... they were maybe intentionally or unintentionally relying on the decision made by other bodies as well as due to consequent rapidity with which decisions must have been made. Finding of these studies should be considered as some actions should be taken into account regarding the validity and reliability of the decisions made by judges... I was actually quite surprise to know that judges tend to be “ shallow” when weighting out cues regarding the cases that they have to make a decision, and then I recalled different cases of how individuals have been given an unfair decision. It is quite sad that these inconsistencies still occur and that the judicial body are not able to manage their workload and offer a service that is expected from them... it would be essential that e more close control is given to the judicial system so that the number of unfair decisions can be at least reduced and maybe a new model of cue weighting be developed so it saves time and increase accuracy for the final decision making of judges.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Any thoughts about how we might make magistrates think a bit more analytically? Should we make them think more analytically?
ReplyDeleteI think magistrates have the skills and knowledge of being more analytical and take more cues into consideration while making decissions, and thatis why it is even worse as it shows that the problem may lie also on the judicial system itself. Due to lack of proper management in the internal resources of the judicial branches, magistrates may be put in such situations that they have to deal with a huge workload and are expected to terminate cases in specific time frame, which in turn may affect the analytical aspect. I am not ruling out the possibility that magistrates may chose themselves to be more shallow, which most probably happens offen, however a better coordination of cases and time management may be a possible solution.
ReplyDeleteMagistrates have to be reminded of ethics and the weight their decissions uphold on their clients life. Maybe a new technique where more cues are mandatory to be assessed and a prior more in depth analysis of the case where both parties would reflect their sided would better grasp the whole picture. This would be more time consuming ( and I know that time is essential in this case) however, magistrates service should not be under pressure as it affects the overall reliability of their decissions.