Judicial Wisdom: The Process of Constructing Wise Decisions

Abstract

Surprisingly little research exists on the role of wisdom within legal decision making. To shed light on this topic, we interviewed 11 U.S. judges who were nominated by their peers for their legal wisdom. They were asked to describe their experience of wise legal decision making and the qualities and processes they felt characterize wise judges. Their interviews were subjected to a grounded theory analysis to develop an understanding of the psychological processes and interpersonal performances that constitute wise legal decision making. Among other findings, results identified attitudes in judges that were thought to lead to better decisions, such as an attitude of curiosity. They identified courtroom management styles that were characterized by magnanimity and compassion as instilling public faith in the system, in contrast to a distant or overly adversarial tone. They tended to agree that, when possible and within the confines of the law, rulings oriented toward rehabilitation were preferable to punitive ones. As well, wise judges described the ways they managed personal challenges arising from value conflicts or ambiguous evidence when making decisions. The article provides clarity on the meanings of the term wisdom within the judicial profession and its construction within the alternative discourses of retributive and procedural justice.This research explores the ways in which judges come to form and relay decisions that are not only fair but wise. The interview study examines the common meanings the psychological term wisdom holds and communicates core understandings from judges who were nominated by their peers for their legal wisdom, on how they enact wisdom within their decision making. As well, this constructivist investigation explores how discourses related to retributive and procedural justice differentially frame the relevance and utility of this concept. JUDICIAL WISDOM: IF AND HOWThe current study considers the question of what constitutes wise decision making within a legal context and what qualities or acts characterize wise judges. Although there is a general sense

The development of wisdom in judicial decision-making.

“…Because the goals of the interview were both to produce a definition of wisdom and to study its development, the interviewees could not be provided with a preexisting definition of wisdom but described their thoughts on the influence of education and training on the development of judicial wisdom using their own understandings. The companion study (Levitt & Dunnavant, in press), however, produced a definition of wisdom within legal decision-making that captured the common meanings across the interviews and it can serve as a basis for understanding the participants' common definition of wisdom: Legal wisdom is the ability to form decisions within the confines of the law (i.e., values of the community/precedents) while recognizing that the evaluation of evidence is context bound (i.e., involving interpretation and decisions to seek further research when unclear) and that the ways courtroom processes and decisions are shaped can motivate healing, positive change, and=or social good. Key elements of this definition included (a) the judge's ability to view evidence as embedded in the multiple perspectives of litigants within their cultural and community contexts, (b) the grounded application of the law within the evidence to reach a decision, and (c) the communication of decisions with the intent to motivate social or personal healing.…”