EVERY convict I know … and everyone who has ever tried to argue a child custody case, lost a small claims case, or whatever thought the judge was personally and malevolently biased against them...
Well, there could be a bit of selection bias there. The people who were acquitted of criminal charges, who were awarded sole custody of their kids, and who won their small claims cases might have different views.
The people who were acquitted of criminal charges, who were awarded sole custody of their kids, and who won their small claims cases might have different views.
I was once ticketed for speeding. (The circumstances were as follows: I was driving several of my friends home after a party—I was as always completely sober—and had a full car. After almost entirely highway driving, I pulled out of an on-ramp, waited at a red light, turned red [because there was no turn on red], and then almost immediately turned again because that’s where my first delivery-couple lived at. As I was turning that second time police lights came on behind me. The officer spent five minutes trying to get me to admit to being under the influence in some way. After it became painfully clear I wasn’t, he quickly wrote me up a ticket for going twenty over, claiming he had ‘paced’ me, and that he had to immediately run off to some other emergency.) Naturally for this story to be relevant here, I contested the ticket. I had each of my friends sign a notarized letter stating that they personally recall me turning on the cruise-control of my car at a non-speeding velocity.
The officer didn’t show up, and so the charges were dropped. But not until after the judge spent a good three minutes lecturing me with as much condescension as she could possibly muster that I was lucky he didn’t, and that “we all knew” what I had done. No amount of testimony on my part—nor any collection of testimony (it was seriously seven on one, and the officer didn’t even have dash-cam evidence, when all vehicles in my state have them...) -- was ever going to change her mind.
Now, I know anecdotes do not make up evidence. But… that taught me a great deal about how the legal system is designed for petty-level criminal violations, as I got to watch many individuals go through the same process. And from that I infer that the attitudes of lower-middle class and lower-class individuals is derived from their exposures to ‘the law’: it is an interference and a nuisance, and therefore all manner of malfeasant caricatures are eminently believable.
I agree! Speaking as someone who was acquitted, the judge was unbiased; it was the arresting officer that had a problem ;)
Seriously, though, humans seem to seek to assign blame for the stress and trouble in their life. I think anyone who has to deal with something as stressful as the legal system is probably going to look for people to blame, and I’d assume that judges get quite a lot of this blame from the losing parties.
Of course there is a selection bias there. I was commenting on the statement that “there’s a broad social belief that the decision of judges are unbiased.”
I think that among those educated at state and private colleges (as opposed to community colleges or no college at all) that is mostly true. I don’t think that there are enough of those people to call it a “broad social belief”.
Here’s another highly politicized, mind killing example. There is the opinion that Europe and Australia have a broad social consensus against the death penalty, but time and time again polls show dramatic SUPPORT for putting certain classes of criminals to death.
In this case it is the BROAD SOCIAL CONSENSUS that is the flaw in the thinking. I mean, if this is about being less wrong, let’s not just work on the comfortable wrong shit, let’s face all of it.
The truth is that people aren’t unbiased. Most don’t even want to be. They just want other people to think they are.
I don’t know that “the upper middle class and the rich” really think judges are unbiased. Judges are assumed to be biased in any case which directly affects their own interests, or in which the judge knows any of the parties. Also, judges in high-profile positions are often assumed to have political biases—as is shown in the debates surrounding Senate confirmation hearings, as well as the recent judicial election in Wisconsin. Sometimes the judiciary in general is perceived to have a bias, such as being “soft on crime.”
What is not usual is to think that judges are strongly biased by how long it has been since their last meal. A lot of commenters on this thread have expressed skepticism on this point, and I do too.
Well, there could be a bit of selection bias there. The people who were acquitted of criminal charges, who were awarded sole custody of their kids, and who won their small claims cases might have different views.
I was once ticketed for speeding. (The circumstances were as follows: I was driving several of my friends home after a party—I was as always completely sober—and had a full car. After almost entirely highway driving, I pulled out of an on-ramp, waited at a red light, turned red [because there was no turn on red], and then almost immediately turned again because that’s where my first delivery-couple lived at. As I was turning that second time police lights came on behind me. The officer spent five minutes trying to get me to admit to being under the influence in some way. After it became painfully clear I wasn’t, he quickly wrote me up a ticket for going twenty over, claiming he had ‘paced’ me, and that he had to immediately run off to some other emergency.) Naturally for this story to be relevant here, I contested the ticket. I had each of my friends sign a notarized letter stating that they personally recall me turning on the cruise-control of my car at a non-speeding velocity.
The officer didn’t show up, and so the charges were dropped. But not until after the judge spent a good three minutes lecturing me with as much condescension as she could possibly muster that I was lucky he didn’t, and that “we all knew” what I had done. No amount of testimony on my part—nor any collection of testimony (it was seriously seven on one, and the officer didn’t even have dash-cam evidence, when all vehicles in my state have them...) -- was ever going to change her mind.
Now, I know anecdotes do not make up evidence. But… that taught me a great deal about how the legal system is designed for petty-level criminal violations, as I got to watch many individuals go through the same process. And from that I infer that the attitudes of lower-middle class and lower-class individuals is derived from their exposures to ‘the law’: it is an interference and a nuisance, and therefore all manner of malfeasant caricatures are eminently believable.
I agree! Speaking as someone who was acquitted, the judge was unbiased; it was the arresting officer that had a problem ;)
Seriously, though, humans seem to seek to assign blame for the stress and trouble in their life. I think anyone who has to deal with something as stressful as the legal system is probably going to look for people to blame, and I’d assume that judges get quite a lot of this blame from the losing parties.
Of course there is a selection bias there. I was commenting on the statement that “there’s a broad social belief that the decision of judges are unbiased.”
I think that among those educated at state and private colleges (as opposed to community colleges or no college at all) that is mostly true. I don’t think that there are enough of those people to call it a “broad social belief”.
Here’s another highly politicized, mind killing example. There is the opinion that Europe and Australia have a broad social consensus against the death penalty, but time and time again polls show dramatic SUPPORT for putting certain classes of criminals to death.
In this case it is the BROAD SOCIAL CONSENSUS that is the flaw in the thinking. I mean, if this is about being less wrong, let’s not just work on the comfortable wrong shit, let’s face all of it.
The truth is that people aren’t unbiased. Most don’t even want to be. They just want other people to think they are.
I don’t know that “the upper middle class and the rich” really think judges are unbiased. Judges are assumed to be biased in any case which directly affects their own interests, or in which the judge knows any of the parties. Also, judges in high-profile positions are often assumed to have political biases—as is shown in the debates surrounding Senate confirmation hearings, as well as the recent judicial election in Wisconsin. Sometimes the judiciary in general is perceived to have a bias, such as being “soft on crime.”
What is not usual is to think that judges are strongly biased by how long it has been since their last meal. A lot of commenters on this thread have expressed skepticism on this point, and I do too.