|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Emotions in the Courtroom
-- By DanielKenkel - 16 Feb 2012
Fairness is Irrational
A study from 2008, discussed on NPR, shows that a desire for fairness is not limited to humans. Monkeys and even dogs will become frustrated and act out when they feel they have been treated unfairly In the experiments, the animals were given rewards for performing a task; if another got a better reward for the same task, the 'cheated' animal would refuse to perform the task any more, and some would even get agitated and violent.
What is most interesting is that this sense of fairness is entirely irrational, in that it does not conform with mainstream economic thought. If the animal was willing to work for a given pay before, what makes it suddenly unfair that they are not getting paid more? Neither supply nor demand for the task has changed, yet they feel the price should.
Though humans are (in theory) capable of controlling their emotions and thinking about matters rationally, this emotional response exists in us. People will still feel an outcome is unfair, even if it is exactly what they expected, what they agreed to, and what they logically feel should have happened.
Courts of Fairness
This study dovetails nicely with the legal thinking of Holmes and Cohen. As under their view, a judge is making an emotional judgment, with no real logic or rationality behind it. Parties come into court not because they see that some rule was broken, but because they feel wronged, just as the "bad man" avoids court not because breaking the rules is evil, but to escape punishment. Both the parties and the judge wrap up their emotions in transcendental nonsense to rationalize and legitimize it. As we have read, this has the consequence of rendering an objectively fair and just trial (ostensibly the goal of the law) impossible.
However, does this in any way change the value of the law to society? I posit (admittedly drawing on thinkers before me to form an unoriginal idea) that it may have a different value than it claims to, but nevertheless has value.
Emotional Safety Valve
It is a fairly uncontested idea that talking about your negative feelings with someone makes you feel better. The legal system may be, in essence, this concept writ large. Simply having a chance to be heard may alleviate some of the feelings of unfairness. Likewise, the fact that every step of the process of litigation is immensely time consuming allows for passions to cool. That it is all so expensive further encourages the forgiveness of minor slights. The roadblocks thrown up by the opposing counsel will similarly drive up the psychic cost of litigation, further incentivizing forgiveness.
Consider, for example, the AUSA from "Robinson's Metamorphosis". When he first saw Robinson's client about to break into his apartment, the AUSA reacted with violence. Were it not for the possible future harm to his career and social standing, Robinson believes the AUSA would have killed the boy. Clearly, the AUSA felt wronged, and took the boy to court (by proxy) to satisfy this feeling; at the time, he apparently thought he would only be satisfied with getting the boy for every crime he could. Nevertheless, once Robinson made the process difficult, the AUSA (by proxy) relented, satisfied with time served.
A Lightning Rod
It does, however, seem rather absurd to suggest that going through the process of litigation reduces a persons frustration. Having to spend all that time and money and being placed under that amount of stress is unlikely to make you feel better overall. And if the outcome is not what you desire, it seems unlikely that the feelings of unfairness would be too greatly reduced. But, the negative feelings are likely to be redirected. The court is now the source of the unfairness. Due to the courts greater power (both in terms of physical force and perceived legitimacy), a party is less likely to act violently to satisfy their sense of fairness. That is, it takes a great number of perceived offenses before someone is willing to take on the government itself. Like a lightning rod, the court draws frustration to itself, because it can take it.
Rationalization
However, with enough people against it, any government will fall. Thus, for a court to survive, it must satisfy the feelings of fairness of a great many people. Perhaps this is where the transcendental nonsense of the law come into play. Because the law is thought to lead to objective justice, the outcome of a case will be perceived of as fair, as long as the populace is given no reason to question the objectivity of the law. The legal nonsense that the decision is couched in add to the feeling of objectivity and legitimacy. So, many people will give up on their feelings of unfairness, merely on the court's say-so.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|