Recently, as part of my training, I found myself in the District Court
Recently, as part of my training, I found myself in the District Court.
Recently, as part of my training, I found myself in the District Court.
The original post appeared on LinkedIn. You can view it below on Linkedin or scroll below for the web version.
Recently, as part of my training, I found myself in the District Court. My first courtroom experience was not just new but also a little overwhelming. This is where people come, burdened with their quest for justice, and sitting on the ejlash makes you feel the weight of these hopes.
Decision making is a crucial aspect of almost all high stake roles. In the corporate sector, the decisions made at the top decide the direction of the company and its employees, while in govt, the civil servants shape the policies of the state and affect its people.
However, there is one institution where every decision impacts not just individual lives but also the course of society as a whole: the judiciary.
For several days, I observed proceedings in the courtroom, sometimes sitting on the ejlash near the judge’s stenographer, sometimes in a corner by the advocates, and occasionally alongside the public prosecutor.
As a quiet neutral observer and administrator, I had the opportunity to think about questions that extend beyond the courtroom.
The judges in the courtroom listen to cases with patience, research on the case and even handle administrative responsibilities to ensure that court office functionality.
However, despite this hard work, why there is a disconnect that leads people to feel unheard and unsatisfied with the judiciary?
While there are visible reasons like low judges to population ratio for pendency if cases, there are also some hidden psychological biases at play that makes the process of judgement much more challenging that it appears.
[1] In court, witnesses often present information to support their innocence, providing an incomplete version of events. Availability bias in the judiciary refers to how the presentation and order of information can significantly influence people's perceptions and decisions, often through effects like the Halo Effect or the impact of recent information.
To reach the right judgment, judges strives to go beyond the surface, ask probing questions, and seek more complete information, ensuring that decisions are nothing but the truth
[2] Representative bias arises when we unconsciously apply stereotypes, such as assuming an educated professional petitioner is rational and logical, regardless of the case's nature. It often takes multiple hearings to overcome these preconceived notions. The good thing is judges recognise that it is human nature to fill gaps with societal knowledge and they try to train their mind to counter it.
[3] Anchoring in the courtroom occurs when lawyers set an initial reference point to sway the judge’s decision in their favor. Judges often find it easier to maintain the status quo, where bias is less apparent, but must be cautious with “offensive” decisions - that involve change or action. They carefully weigh all perspectives to prevent undue influence from any initial anchor.
The pursuit of justice is not a matter of facts alone, but of fairness in the face of human fallibility.