Guilty Minds

Author(s):  
Anne C. Dailey

This chapter examines the puzzling question of why an otherwise rational person would voluntarily confess to a crime, knowing full well that the state will punish in return. Even more puzzling is the phenomenon of false confessions, where an individual inexplicably confesses to a crime she did not commit, in some cases believing in her own guilt. Psychoanalysis gives us important insights into these irrational phenomena. The focus in this chapter is on the ways in which certain deceptive and degrading police interrogation tactics may override a suspect’s conscious rational decision-making powers by enlisting unconscious needs, aggressions, and guilt. Three interrogation tactics are of greatest concern: false sympathy, degradation, and trickery. As this chapter shows, false sympathy and degradation exploit deep-seated, unconscious desires for absolution and punishment that undermine the voluntariness of a suspect’s self-incriminating statements. Similarly, police trickery can take unfair advantage of a suspect’s need to rationalize unconscious guilt for a crime he did not commit. By drawing attention to the risks associated with these methods, psychoanalysis ensures that the most egregious practices can be eliminated from our criminal justice system. Psychoanalytic insights into unconscious processes advances the law’s own best ideals of fundamental fairness in the criminal law.

Author(s):  
Jeremy Horder

This chapter discusses the process of criminal law. The focus is on the importance of the exercise of official discretion, on the criminal law in action, and on the role of bureaucracy in criminal law. There is also an outline of sentencing powers. Patterns of decision-making by criminal justice officials are one of four key pillars of criminal law and justice, along with criminal law principles, rules, and standards. We will see how these patterns are structured by crime management and bureaucratic-administrative techniques designed to reduce the number of contested trials and issues, and hence take pressure off the criminal justice system as a whole.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-70
Author(s):  
Hajairin Hajairin

In this research, the author saw in two court judgments which taken out by the District Court (PN) of Raba Bima, number 341/Pid.B/2014/PN.R.bi and the High Court of Mataram (PT), number 20/Pid/2015/PT.Mtr. Both of judgments are strengthen each other, it defendant is in the period of detention during 19 years in prison. However, the  verdict/judgment of Supreme Court Number 815K/Pid/2015 cancelled of two court judgment which it underneath. In this case, the Judge has different view of law as the main point to be consideration to make decision for Abdul Khalik. The construction of law in this case has to be seen and translated by the concept of judgment and legal certainty, because of different decision making by District Court (PN) of Raba Bima, the High Court of Mataram and Supreme Court which is freeing Abdul Khalik from all lawsuits. Based on these situation, it need to deep analysis and critically to get the best judgment as the goal of criminal law which is born by the criminal justice system.


2021 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
pp. 15-21
Author(s):  
Rahul Bhui ◽  
Lucy Lai ◽  
Samuel J Gershman

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fritz Breithaupt

This article examines the relation of empathy and rational judgment. When people observe a conflict most are quick to side with one of the parties. Once a side has been taken, empathy with that party further solidifies this choice. Hence, it will be suggested that empathy is not neutral to judgment and rational decision-making. This does not mean, however, that the one who empathizes will necessarily have made the best choice.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arif Ahmed

Evidential Decision Theory is a radical theory of rational decision-making. It recommends that instead of thinking about what your decisions *cause*, you should think about what they *reveal*. This Element explains in simple terms why thinking in this way makes a big difference, and argues that doing so makes for *better* decisions. An appendix gives an intuitive explanation of the measure-theoretic foundations of Evidential Decision Theory.


Author(s):  
Michael R. Gottfredson ◽  
Don M. Gottfredson

Elements ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Moretti

Policy and intelligence are intimately intertwined. Policymakers need intelligence to make decisions, while the intelligence community derives significance from its ability to provide policy makers with reliable information. In this symbiotic relationship, it is healthy for intelligence consumers to at times check and direct the work of intelligence producers. However, if undertaken maliciously, this checking mechanism manifests as top-down politicization. Here, leaders use intelligence post facto to legitimize their policies instead of using it to guide them, reversing the rational decision-making process. Certain factors may compel leaders to manipulate intelligence to reflect their policy preferences. This essay demonstrates how three distinct processes of top-down politicization can arise from ambiguous evidence, the psychology of intelligence consumers, and the nature of the leaders’ political positions and responsibilities. It then proceeds to argue that political leaders’ psychology is the most potent source of top-down politicization.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document