The court rules... – Study assesses decision-making by full bench sections
Professor De Dreu awarded special research assignment by Council for the Judiciary
How do full bench sections arrive at a ruling? Which circumstances have a beneficial or detrimental effect on their decision-making process? Prof. Carsten de Dreu (professor of Work and Organisational Psychology and Dr Femke ten Velden (university lecturer/postdoc) will be striving to answer these questions as they conduct their special research assignment for the Council for the Judiciary.
How do full bench sections arrive at a ruling? Which circumstances have a beneficial or detrimental effect on their decision-making process? Prof. Carsten de Dreu (professor of Work and Organisational Psychology and Dr Femke ten Velden (university lecturer/postdoc) will be striving to answer these questions as they conduct their special research assignment for the Council for the Judiciary.The Council for the Judiciary hopes De Dreu and Ten Velden will be able to provide further insight into the workings of district court full bench sections. Full bench sections, consisting of at least three judges, generally rule on more complex cases, whereas less complicated cases are referred to single-judge sections. The research assignment will start by assessing the basis upon which cases are referred to either the full bench or single-judge section. De Dreu: ‘The theoretical framework provides a guideline as to which decisions are best taken on an individual basis and which are best suited to multiple judges. We will start by assessing whether this theory actually corresponds with the practical reality.'
Quality of rulings
The researchers will then assess the circumstances under which full bench sections reach decisions: do judges each study a portion of the available information, or does each judge read every document, does the registrar summarise information, what sort of working relationship do the judges have, are they subject to stressful deadlines, is there a specific hierarchy between them? ‘All these aspects determine how a group of people processes information, which is crucial in terms of the quality of their decision-making', De Dreu explains. ‘Gaining a clearer insight into the circumstances under which these full bench sections operate will allow us to provide advice that can be used to further optimise decision-making processes. This is crucial, as court decisions have far-reaching consequences. After all, innocents can end up in prison as a result of poor decisions, while guilty felons are out on the streets due to supposed lack of evidence.'Minority view
Fatigue or time constraints can influence the decision-making process, as can fear of defending a minority view. An interesting example of the latter can be found in the film 12 Angry Men (1957) starring Henry Fonda. A courtroom jury must deliver a verdict on a black youth accused of murder. The jury - having been presented with some rather flimsy evidence of the boy's guilt - is tired and wants to go home. Reaching a verdict will require a unanimous vote. One member of the jury (Henry Fonda) is convinced his "peers" have got it wrong, and makes a case for the suspect's innocence. One by one, he managed to convince the other members of the jury, who eventually deliver a ‘not guilty' verdict.De Dreu: ‘The film clearly illustrates that debate is a key part of any well-founded group decision. Amongst other factors, we will be assessing whether the judges debate one another behind closed doors and - if so - how. Under which circumstances do they exchange views, how does internal hierarchy affect their debate, what sort of arguments do they find convincing, etc.'
Experiment with trainee judges
The study, which will be completed in the summer of 2011, consists of various phases and will start with a series of interviews with judges from full bench sections. ‘Ideally, I'd like to attend a few deliberations, so I hope the judges will grant permission for that. We will be holding a large-scale questionnaire on the basis of the interviews, surveying some 200 judges. Amongst other aspects, we will be asking questions about the time constraints they work under, the general atmosphere, the sort of arguments that can sway their decisions, etc. We also plan to conduct experimental research. As judges have a busy schedule, we also aim to survey trainee judges (RAIOs). We will simulate the deliberation room environment and vary certain parameters such as the provision of information. We will also be able to assess the relationship between the quality of the decision-making process and the quality of the final judgement.'
The results will be recorded in a report by the Council for the Judiciary. The researchers also aim to publish a series of articles based on their findings.
Author: Esther van Bochove, FMG Communication Department