Psykojuridinen näkökulma tuomarin päätöksentekoon, erityisesti rangaistuksen määräämiseen
Avainsanat:
prosessioikeus, kognitiivinen psykologia, tuomarit, oikeuspsykologia, päätöksenteko, rangaistuksen määrääminenAbstrakti
District Judges’ decision-making in sentencing
The authors present a multidisciplinary view of sentencing decision-making in Finnish courts of first instance (District Courts). Their aim is to provide a psychologically realistic view of a judge’s decision-making when drafting a sentence. The article describes results of foreign studies on the topic of expert decision-making, from the point of view of cognitive dual-rocess theories. These studies have revealed that irrelevant factors have effects on expert decisions, including judicial decisions. The authors look at the implications of these results on sentencing norms.
Judges as well as many other professionals generally believe that their expertise develops with experience. However, this would require their decision-making environment to be valid, i.e., stable, predictable, and such that it provides clear and timely feedback. The authors argue that judges’ decision-making environment actually is none of the above, which is why judges cannot rely on the development of their intuition via implicit learning. At worst, an expert operating in an invalid decision-making environment may develop false confidence in the quality of his or her work. Judges should develop their expertise by conscious, systematic study of the law while being aware of the effects of intuition on their work. Also legislators who draft criminal and procedural rules should be cognisant of human decision-making processes and biases.
Finland does not have much of a tradition of experimental research in the field of judicial psychology. The authors present some possible experimental settings for the future study of a judge’s decision-making in sentencing.
