Empathy and objectivity in the legal procedure: the case of Swedish prosecutors

From devil’s advocate to crime fighter: confirmation bias and debiasing techniques in prosecutorial decision-making

“…Apart from prosecutors' multiple and sometimes conflicting roles (Green & Roiphe, 2017;Heuman, 2004), research also highlights other general risk factors of confirmation bias such as prosecutors' wide discretion (Babcock & Loewenstein, 1997;Hobbs, 1950;Levinson & Young, 2010), emotions and empathy, i.e. the capacity to read someone else's emotions (Wettergren & Bergman Blix, 2016) as well as institutional and societal incentives to be tough on crime (Hobbs, 1950;O'Brien, 2009).…”

“…Another view is that prosecutorial neutrality is at its peak prior to the charging decision (Burke, 2006), possibly because prosecutors use this time period to carefully evaluate whether there are sufficient reasons to prosecute and thereby act as their own devil's advocates. However, with the charging decision the guilt hypothesis is consolidated since prosecutors only press charges if they are sufficiently certain of the accused's guilt (Freedman, 1990;Gershman, 2001) and in this assessment they anticipate the prospects of a conviction (Ernberg, Tidefors, & Landström, 2016;Lievore, 2005;Wettergren & Bergman Blix, 2016). This suggests that the charging decision results in a psychological shift whereby prosecutors become crime fighters whose primary objective is to get defendants convicted.…”

“…In Sweden, prosecutors' involvement in the investigative phase is not generally considered to make them unsuited to also act in Court (The Swedish Government Bill, Prop. 2000/ 01:92, p. 20) even if many scholars have discussed this risk (Jacobson, 2008;Lindberg, 1997;Wettergren & Bergman Blix, 2016). However, in France, where prosecutors today run close to all inquiries (Gilliéron, 2013), it has been considered necessary to counterbalance the power vested in the prosecution and this is the role of the investigative judge, who for instance has a lot of influence when it comes to coercive measures (Gilliéron, 2013).…”

Doing Loyalty: Defense Lawyers’ Subtle Dramas in the Courtroom

“…Most research about defense lawyers is on the juridical or legal representation of one’s client (Flower 2014b; Conley and O’Barr 1990); thus, although “[t]he work of lawyers is founded on interaction” (Flood 1991, 69), how a defense is achieved interactionally has gained little attention. As the courtroom is an emotional place (Wettergren and Bergman Blix 2016), such an interactional defense may involve the management of emotions. In this article, I will therefore address how defense lawyers defend clients from a sociological standpoint.…”

Gendered views on parole: exploring how emotion and emotion management help to explain gender differences in the Australian public’s views on parole

“…Research on legal decision-making confirms that those responsible for making decisions at other points of the criminal justice process are not exempt from emotion, with one study showing that Australian magistrates often experience and manage feelings of sympathy toward defendants (Roach Anleu & Mack, 2005) and another that Swedish prosecutors use empathy to guide their professional role at various stages of an investigation and trial (Wettergren & Bergman Blix, 2016). However, in his recent review of Queensland's parole system, former Solicitor-General Walter Sofronoff QC (2016) firmly denied the presence of emotion in parole decision-making, stating this process is "unemotional by its very nature" (p.233).…”