The Psychology of Trial Judging

Trial court judges play a crucial role in the administration of justice for both criminal and civil matters. Although psychologists have studied juries for many decades, they have paid relatively little attention to judges. Recent writings, however, suggest that there is increasing interest in the psychology of judicial decision making. In this article, I review several selected areas of judicial behavior in which decisions appear to be influenced by psychological dispositions, but I caution that a mature psychology of judging field will need to consider the influence of the bureaucratic court setting in which judges are embedded, judges’ legal training, and the constraints of legal precedent

An Analysis of Public Attitudes Toward the Insanity Defense

Results from a public opinion survey of knowledge, attitudes, and support for the insanity defense indicate that people dislike the insanity defense for both retributive and utilitarian reasons: they want insane law-breakers punished, and they believe that insanity defense procedures fail to protect the public. However, people vastly overestimate the use and success of the insanity plea. Several attitudinal and demographic variables that other researchers have found to be associated with people\u27s support for the death penalty and perceptions of criminal sentencing are also related to support for the insanity defense. Implications for public policy are discussed

Amicus Brief, Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital

Illinois Public Act 82-280, § 2-1706.5, as amended by P.A. 94-677, § 330 (eff. Aug. 25, 2005), and as codified as 735 ILCS 5/2-1706.5(a), imposes a $500,000 “cap” on the noneconomic damages that may be awarded in a medical malpractice suit against a physician or other health care professional, and a$1 million “cap” on the noneconomic damages that may be awarded against a hospital, its affiliates, or their employees. This brief will address two of the questions presented for review by the parties: 1. Does the cap violate the Illinois Constitution’s prohibition on “special legislation,” Art. IV, § 3, because it unnecessarily, arbitrarily, and irrationally grants exceptional benefits and privileges exclusively to certain classes of tort defendants. 2. Does the cap violate the Illinois Constitution’s guarantee of “equal protection,” Art. I, § 2, because it unnecessarily, arbitrarily, and irrationally imposes extraordinary burdens uniquely upon certain classes and sub-classes of tort plaintiffs

Empirical Legal Studies Before 1940: A Bibliographic Essay

The modern empirical legal studies movement has well-known antecedents in the law and society and law and economics traditions of the latter half of the 20th century. Less well known is the body of empirical research on legal phenomena from the period prior to World War II. This paper is an extensive bibliographic essay that surveys the English language empirical legal research from approximately 1940 and earlier. The essay is arranged around the themes in the research: criminal justice, civil justice (general studies of civil litigation, auto accident litigation and compensation, divorce, small claims, jurisdiction and procedure, civil juries), debt and bankruptcy, banking, appellate courts, legal needs, legal profession (including legal education), and judicial staffing and selection. Accompanying the essay is an extensive bibliography of research articles, books, and reports