THE TAIL THAT WAGS THE DOG, OR HOW JUDGES RULE IN HARD CASES
THE TAIL THAT WAGS THE DOG, OR HOW JUDGES RULE IN HARD CASES

Summary/Abstract: This article aims at answering a question about the influence of intuition and emotions on the decision-making process of judges who rule in hard cases. This influence seems much more considerable than traditional decision-making models adopted in legal science, according to which a judge reaches a final decision by way of rational legal reasoning guided by principles of logic, life experience, and common sense whereas any emotions that might appear in the process should be controlled. This article presents an alternative concept arguing that in hard cases judges make fast, intuitive decision based on non-rational criteria and legal reasoning is merely an element of secondary rationalization which serves the purpose of post-factum justification of a decision made previously. The author argues this thesis drawing on the work of one of the most distinguished modern moral psychologists, Jonathan Haidt.

• Details
• Contents