The Devil We Know: Legal Precedent and the Preservation of Injustice

A hallmark feature of the common law tradition is reliance on past decisions, or precedent, to resolve legal ambiguity and ensure consistency across similar cases. Yet the intent of precedent—to safeguard equity—may be undermined by nonconscious psychological processes. The behavioral and brain scie...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences 2021-03, Vol.8 (1), p.76-83
Main Authors: Hennes, Erin P., Dang, Layla
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c325t-8b86124f0ca7cce2d1136a0b1a733d447f30887a90d9709980ce53819a355f093
container_end_page 83
container_issue 1
container_start_page 76
container_title Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences
container_volume 8
creator Hennes, Erin P.
Dang, Layla
description A hallmark feature of the common law tradition is reliance on past decisions, or precedent, to resolve legal ambiguity and ensure consistency across similar cases. Yet the intent of precedent—to safeguard equity—may be undermined by nonconscious psychological processes. The behavioral and brain sciences show that decision-making can be contaminated by a human proclivity (endemic among both judges and laypeople) to justify and legitimize extant societal arrangements. Examples from case law and empirical legal studies illustrate how precedent may impede social justice in ways that are predictable from psychological theory. Highlighted in particular are barriers to justice disproportionately encountered by members of historically disadvantaged groups. The article closes with a discussion of opportunities for institutional reform and a call for continued scholarship examining the prevalence and impact of status-quo-maintaining biases in the legal system.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/2372732220980757
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>sage_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_2372732220980757</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_2372732220980757</sage_id><sourcerecordid>10.1177_2372732220980757</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c325t-8b86124f0ca7cce2d1136a0b1a733d447f30887a90d9709980ce53819a355f093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UE1LAzEUDKJgqb17zB9YfUk2TeJNWj-KC3qoeFzS7EvdpWYl2Vb8902peBA8zWOYGeYNIZcMrhhT6poLxZXgnIPRoKQ6IaMDVSgh4PT35vycTFLqAIBJo5jQIzJfviOd467d0DekT6H_uqEVru2GvkR02GAYqA0NHbIsMwnjzg5tH2jv6SJ02zS0Di_ImbebhJMfHJPX-7vl7LGonh8Ws9uqcILLodArPWW89OCscg55w5iYWlgxm3s2Zam8AK2VNdAYBSa_4lAKzYwVUnowYkzgmOtin1JEX3_G9sPG75pBfRii_jtEthRHS7JrrLt-G0Nu-L9-D5ZsWsc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Devil We Know: Legal Precedent and the Preservation of Injustice</title><source>SAGE:Jisc Collections:SAGE Journals Read and Publish 2023-2024: Reading List</source><creator>Hennes, Erin P. ; Dang, Layla</creator><creatorcontrib>Hennes, Erin P. ; Dang, Layla</creatorcontrib><description>A hallmark feature of the common law tradition is reliance on past decisions, or precedent, to resolve legal ambiguity and ensure consistency across similar cases. Yet the intent of precedent—to safeguard equity—may be undermined by nonconscious psychological processes. The behavioral and brain sciences show that decision-making can be contaminated by a human proclivity (endemic among both judges and laypeople) to justify and legitimize extant societal arrangements. Examples from case law and empirical legal studies illustrate how precedent may impede social justice in ways that are predictable from psychological theory. Highlighted in particular are barriers to justice disproportionately encountered by members of historically disadvantaged groups. The article closes with a discussion of opportunities for institutional reform and a call for continued scholarship examining the prevalence and impact of status-quo-maintaining biases in the legal system.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2372-7322</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2372-7330</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/2372732220980757</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><ispartof>Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences, 2021-03, Vol.8 (1), p.76-83</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c325t-8b86124f0ca7cce2d1136a0b1a733d447f30887a90d9709980ce53819a355f093</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,79110</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hennes, Erin P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dang, Layla</creatorcontrib><title>The Devil We Know: Legal Precedent and the Preservation of Injustice</title><title>Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences</title><description>A hallmark feature of the common law tradition is reliance on past decisions, or precedent, to resolve legal ambiguity and ensure consistency across similar cases. Yet the intent of precedent—to safeguard equity—may be undermined by nonconscious psychological processes. The behavioral and brain sciences show that decision-making can be contaminated by a human proclivity (endemic among both judges and laypeople) to justify and legitimize extant societal arrangements. Examples from case law and empirical legal studies illustrate how precedent may impede social justice in ways that are predictable from psychological theory. Highlighted in particular are barriers to justice disproportionately encountered by members of historically disadvantaged groups. The article closes with a discussion of opportunities for institutional reform and a call for continued scholarship examining the prevalence and impact of status-quo-maintaining biases in the legal system.</description><issn>2372-7322</issn><issn>2372-7330</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1UE1LAzEUDKJgqb17zB9YfUk2TeJNWj-KC3qoeFzS7EvdpWYl2Vb8902peBA8zWOYGeYNIZcMrhhT6poLxZXgnIPRoKQ6IaMDVSgh4PT35vycTFLqAIBJo5jQIzJfviOd467d0DekT6H_uqEVru2GvkR02GAYqA0NHbIsMwnjzg5tH2jv6SJ02zS0Di_ImbebhJMfHJPX-7vl7LGonh8Ws9uqcILLodArPWW89OCscg55w5iYWlgxm3s2Zam8AK2VNdAYBSa_4lAKzYwVUnowYkzgmOtin1JEX3_G9sPG75pBfRii_jtEthRHS7JrrLt-G0Nu-L9-D5ZsWsc</recordid><startdate>202103</startdate><enddate>202103</enddate><creator>Hennes, Erin P.</creator><creator>Dang, Layla</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202103</creationdate><title>The Devil We Know: Legal Precedent and the Preservation of Injustice</title><author>Hennes, Erin P. ; Dang, Layla</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c325t-8b86124f0ca7cce2d1136a0b1a733d447f30887a90d9709980ce53819a355f093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hennes, Erin P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dang, Layla</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hennes, Erin P.</au><au>Dang, Layla</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Devil We Know: Legal Precedent and the Preservation of Injustice</atitle><jtitle>Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences</jtitle><date>2021-03</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>76</spage><epage>83</epage><pages>76-83</pages><issn>2372-7322</issn><eissn>2372-7330</eissn><abstract>A hallmark feature of the common law tradition is reliance on past decisions, or precedent, to resolve legal ambiguity and ensure consistency across similar cases. Yet the intent of precedent—to safeguard equity—may be undermined by nonconscious psychological processes. The behavioral and brain sciences show that decision-making can be contaminated by a human proclivity (endemic among both judges and laypeople) to justify and legitimize extant societal arrangements. Examples from case law and empirical legal studies illustrate how precedent may impede social justice in ways that are predictable from psychological theory. Highlighted in particular are barriers to justice disproportionately encountered by members of historically disadvantaged groups. The article closes with a discussion of opportunities for institutional reform and a call for continued scholarship examining the prevalence and impact of status-quo-maintaining biases in the legal system.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/2372732220980757</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2372-7322
ispartof Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences, 2021-03, Vol.8 (1), p.76-83
issn 2372-7322
2372-7330
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_2372732220980757
source SAGE:Jisc Collections:SAGE Journals Read and Publish 2023-2024: Reading List
title The Devil We Know: Legal Precedent and the Preservation of Injustice
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T07%3A30%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-sage_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Devil%20We%20Know:%20Legal%20Precedent%20and%20the%20Preservation%20of%20Injustice&rft.jtitle=Policy%20insights%20from%20the%20behavioral%20and%20brain%20sciences&rft.au=Hennes,%20Erin%20P.&rft.date=2021-03&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=76&rft.epage=83&rft.pages=76-83&rft.issn=2372-7322&rft.eissn=2372-7330&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/2372732220980757&rft_dat=%3Csage_cross%3E10.1177_2372732220980757%3C/sage_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c325t-8b86124f0ca7cce2d1136a0b1a733d447f30887a90d9709980ce53819a355f093%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_2372732220980757&rfr_iscdi=true