Psychology, Crime & Law ( IF 1.193 ) Pub Date : 2021-04-02 , DOI: 10.1080/1068316x.2021.1909014 Narina Nunez, Kimberly Schweitzer
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.
当选国家法官司法公正的认识在一系列的研究进行了检查。特别令人感兴趣的是竞选捐款和案件类型如何影响法官可能是公正的看法。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取向进行了评估，并评估了如果他们从这些实体那里获得捐款，法官的公正程度。在研究2中，参与者阅读了一位法官，该法官是从自由派或保守派政治行动委员会（N = 190）或公司（N = 188）那里获得捐款的。研究3（N = 809）测试了在发生冲突的案件中进行司法撤回是否可以修复对司法公正性的看法。参与者在政治取向上的个体差异也得到了检验。在所有研究中，参与者在竞选期间收到捐赠并后来听到与捐赠人的利益明显相关的案件时，对法官的公正性评价较低。发现参与者与捐助者政治取向之间的重要互动。通常，自由派参加者认为捐助者为保守派时法官会较不公平，而保守派参加者认为捐助者为保守派时法官会较不公平。最后，司法撤销导致更高的未来公平性评级。