ABSTRACT

Perceptions of judicial fairness for elected state judges were examined across a series of studies. Of particular interest was how campaign donations and types of cases affect perceptions that judges could be fair. In Study 1, participants (N = 120) rated the political orientation of 14 groups or companies known to provide campaign contributions and rated how fair judges could be if they received donations from these entities. In Study 2, participants read about a judge who received donations from a liberal or conservative political action committee (N = 190) or corporation (N = 188). Study 3 (N = 809) tested whether judicial recusal in conflicted cases could repair perceptions of judicial fairness. Individual differences in participant political orientation were also examined. Across all studies, participants rated judges as less fair when they received donations during their campaigns and later heard cases that were clearly related to donors’ interests. Significant interactions between participant and donor political orientation were found. Generally, liberal participants thought judges would be less fair when donors were conservative, and conservative participants thought judges would be less fair when donors were liberal. Finally, judicial recusal led to higher future fairness ratings.

摘要

在一系列研究中检验了民选州法官对司法公平的看法。特别感兴趣的是竞选捐款和案件类型如何影响法官公平的看法。在研究 1 中，参与者 ( N  = 120) 对 14 个已知提供竞选捐款的团体或公司的政治倾向进行了评分，并评估了如果法官收到这些实体的捐款，他们的公平程度。在研究 2 中，参与者读到一位法官从自由派或保守派政治行动委员会 ( N  = 190) 或公司 ( N  = 188) 获得捐款。研究 3 ( N = 809) 测试了冲突案件中的司法回避是否可以修复对司法公平的看法。还检查了参与者政治取向的个体差异。在所有研究中，参与者在竞选期间收到捐款时认为法官不太公平，后来审理了明显与捐款人利益相关的案件。发现参与者和捐助者的政治取向之间存在显着的相互作用。一般来说，自由派参与者认为，当捐赠者保守时，法官会不公平，而保守派参与者认为，当捐赠者自由时，法官会不公平。最后，司法回避导致更高的未来公平评级。