Plesničar Mojca M
Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Front Sociol. 2024 Dec 5;9:1488786. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1488786. eCollection 2024.
Legal decision-making aspires to be objective, a principle regarded as foundational to justice, public trust, and the legitimacy of legal outcomes. However, this ideal is often challenged by the reality of human judgment, which is influenced by subjective factors such as emotions, biases, and varying cognitive strategies. This paper investigates the psychological challenges faced by legal professionals in the context of sentencing, drawing on data from studies involving judges and prosecutors in Slovenia. Through workshops, interviews, and focus groups, the research highlights substantial inconsistencies in sentencing practices, even for similar offences. These disparities reveal the limits of objectivity within the judicial process, prompting legal professionals to reflect on the systemic and individual factors driving variability. The analysis focuses on how judges and prosecutors react to these discrepancies, examining a range of emotional and psychological responses-including the rationalization of decisions, the pursuit of consistency through personal "sentencing codes," and reliance on collegial input to cope with the absence of formal guidelines. The analysis draws on concepts from cognitive dissonance theory, deliberate ignorance, emotional labour, and personality types to explore how professionals reconcile the ideal of objectivity with the imperfections of human judgment. It highlights the profound emotional toll that discrepancies in sentencing can take on decision-makers and how these emotional reactions influence their professional identity and approach to justice. By contextualising these findings within the sociology of emotions, this paper emphasises how the emotional realities of legal professionals shape their responses to perceived failures and impact their capacity to deliver justice. Ultimately, this study aims to foster a deeper understanding of the human aspects of judicial decision-making, underscoring the need for systemic reforms to mitigate disparities, provide support, and promote consistency in sentencing practices.
法律决策力求客观，这一原则被视为正义、公众信任和法律结果合法性的基础。然而，这一理想常常受到人类判断现实的挑战，人类判断会受到情绪、偏见和不同认知策略等主观因素的影响。本文利用来自斯洛文尼亚涉及法官和检察官的研究数据，调查了法律专业人员在量刑背景下面临的心理挑战。通过研讨会、访谈和焦点小组，研究突出了量刑实践中存在的严重不一致，即使是针对类似罪行。这些差异揭示了司法过程中客观性的局限性，促使法律专业人员反思导致差异的系统因素和个人因素。分析聚焦于法官和检察官如何应对这些差异，考察了一系列情绪和心理反应，包括决策的合理化、通过个人“量刑准则”追求一致性，以及依靠同事的意见来应对缺乏正式指导方针的情况。分析借鉴了认知失调理论、刻意忽视、情绪劳动和人格类型等概念，以探讨专业人员如何使客观性理想与人类判断的不完美相协调。它强调了量刑差异对决策者可能造成的深刻情感代价，以及这些情绪反应如何影响他们的职业身份和司法方式。通过将这些发现置于情感社会学的背景下，本文强调了法律专业人员的情感现实如何塑造他们对感知到的失败的反应，并影响他们实现正义的能力。最终，本研究旨在促进对司法决策中人性方面的更深入理解，强调需要进行系统性改革，以减少差异、提供支持并促进量刑实践的一致性。
