The Judge Under Pressure : Fostering Objectivity by Abandoning the Myth of Dispassion

The independence of the judiciary is challenged in several ways. One is the populist narrative of the judges as elitist, another is artificial intelligence being introduced into judicial evaluation. The traditional ideal of positivistic objectivity underpins both these narratives, even though research has shown that emotions are a crucial part of rational decision making. By scrutinising legal decision making from a sociology of emotions perspective, the authors offer a new understanding of how emotions function in court and how they can be used to safeguard judicial independence. The chapter shows the importance of the use of empathy and emotions in court to diminish the gap between the judge and participants in the courtroom process, and argues that the universalist claim and quantifying base of AI hide the importance of the judge to understand the specificities of each individual case, including contextual and relational aspects.. In contrast, emotions and empathy can be a means to legitimate the judiciary, and hence highlight the specific human aspects of judging