Do Not Ignore the Elephant... Exploring the Role of Intuition and Experience in Judicial Decision-Making

Linda Tvrdíková
{"title":"Do Not Ignore the Elephant... Exploring the Role of Intuition and Experience in Judicial Decision-Making","authors":"Linda Tvrdíková","doi":"10.5817/cz.muni.p210-9972-2021-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"If we look at the literature about judicial decision-making and interpretation of law, we can find many texts which are dedicated to legal arguments, logic and legal reasoning – in those texts the rationality, analytical and logical thinking is glorified and an interpretation seems ‘just’ as a logical operation where judges subsume certain facts under general legal norm or norms, those norms are formulated linguistically, so it seems that the whole job of judges is to analyze texts. What we can see more rarely are discussions and texts exploring the role of intuitions, feelings and emotions and their role in judicial decision-making – at least in the Czech Republic. Those of our faculties are seen as the source of bias and distortion. Even if we look to the past, those themes are not so common among legal theorists and philosophers – especially in our tradition where we are still influenced by Hans Kelsen and František Weyr and their normative theory – but we can find exceptions and those are the American legal realists. In this paper, we will show that their observations and insights seem to be right. How can we know it? Because in last decades cognitive scientists have made big progress in the area of decision-making and it seems that we are not so rational as we thought us to be. They have explored that our thinking does not take place only through the deliberative system but, surprisingly, there is also another one system which influences our decisions. This system is automatic, fast, and intuitive – some call this system S1, Seymour Epstein an experiential system. This automatic system is more influential than our deliberative system because it is always heard – we can use Jonathan Haidt’s metaphor of an elephant and a rider. S1, the intuitive, experiential system, is an elephant and S2, the deliberative, analytical system is the rider – in legal theory, we have talked about the rider a lot but we do not explore the elephant sufficiently. This paper will try to uncover the nature of the elephant.","PeriodicalId":346548,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation 2021","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation 2021","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5817/cz.muni.p210-9972-2021-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

If we look at the literature about judicial decision-making and interpretation of law, we can find many texts which are dedicated to legal arguments, logic and legal reasoning – in those texts the rationality, analytical and logical thinking is glorified and an interpretation seems ‘just’ as a logical operation where judges subsume certain facts under general legal norm or norms, those norms are formulated linguistically, so it seems that the whole job of judges is to analyze texts. What we can see more rarely are discussions and texts exploring the role of intuitions, feelings and emotions and their role in judicial decision-making – at least in the Czech Republic. Those of our faculties are seen as the source of bias and distortion. Even if we look to the past, those themes are not so common among legal theorists and philosophers – especially in our tradition where we are still influenced by Hans Kelsen and František Weyr and their normative theory – but we can find exceptions and those are the American legal realists. In this paper, we will show that their observations and insights seem to be right. How can we know it? Because in last decades cognitive scientists have made big progress in the area of decision-making and it seems that we are not so rational as we thought us to be. They have explored that our thinking does not take place only through the deliberative system but, surprisingly, there is also another one system which influences our decisions. This system is automatic, fast, and intuitive – some call this system S1, Seymour Epstein an experiential system. This automatic system is more influential than our deliberative system because it is always heard – we can use Jonathan Haidt’s metaphor of an elephant and a rider. S1, the intuitive, experiential system, is an elephant and S2, the deliberative, analytical system is the rider – in legal theory, we have talked about the rider a lot but we do not explore the elephant sufficiently. This paper will try to uncover the nature of the elephant.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不要忽视大象……试论直觉与经验在司法决策中的作用
如果我们看的文献关于司法决策和解释法律,我们可以发现许多文献专门的法律论据,逻辑和法律推理——在这些文本的合理性,分析能力和逻辑思维是荣耀和一种解释似乎“只是”一个逻辑操作,法官将某些事实归入一般法律规范或规范,这些规范是制定语言,所以,似乎整个法官的工作是分析文本。我们很少看到的是探讨直觉、感觉和情感的作用及其在司法决策中的作用的讨论和文本——至少在捷克共和国是这样。我们的那些能力被视为偏见和扭曲的来源。即使我们回顾过去,这些主题在法律理论家和哲学家中并不常见,特别是在我们的传统中,我们仍然受到汉斯·凯尔森和František Weyr以及他们的规范理论的影响,但我们可以找到例外,那就是美国的法律现实主义者。在本文中,我们将证明他们的观察和见解似乎是正确的。我们怎么知道呢?因为在过去的几十年里,认知科学家在决策领域取得了巨大的进步,似乎我们并不像我们想象的那么理性。他们发现,我们的思考不仅仅是通过审议系统进行的,令人惊讶的是,还有另一个系统影响着我们的决定。这个系统是自动的,快速的,直观的——有些人称这个系统为S1, Seymour Epstein是一个经验系统。这种自动系统比我们的审议系统更有影响力,因为它总是被听到——我们可以用乔纳森·海特关于大象和骑手的比喻。直觉的、经验的系统S1是一头大象,而审议的、分析的系统S2是骑者——在法律理论中,我们已经谈论了很多骑者,但我们没有充分探讨大象。这篇论文将试图揭示大象的本性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Conceptualization of ‘Public Order’ within Czech Legal Style Do Not Ignore the Elephant... Exploring the Role of Intuition and Experience in Judicial Decision-Making The Dynamics of Consent and Antagonism in Ian McDonald’s Luna Trilogy The Concept of Legal Language: Law is Language Vagueness and Theory of Gaps
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1