The Impact of Court Procedure on the Psychology of Judicial Decision Making

Procedure matters, granted. But why, and how? There is hardly another context in which decision-making is that densely embedded in a host of formal and informal institutions. Courts do not themselves have the right of initiative. They must wait until a plaintiff or the attorney general brings a case. These actors do also define the issue. The court is not allowed to go beyond the claim, unless both parties voluntarily agree on a broader definition. Most importantly, courts are not free to determine the output. It is their task to apply the law in force to the facts of the case, as presented by the parties. The potentially applicable substantive rules do thus delineate the solution space. In order to become decision relevant, facts must go through strictly defined procedural routes. If a fact is contested, it may only be taken into account if formally proven. There is an exhaustive list of evidence admissible in court. Informal rules for instance determine the structure and the wording of the pleadings, and of the representation of the final decision to the parties and to the legal community.
This makes judicial procedure a particularly rewarding topic for the interaction between lawyers and psychologists. A group of academics from the US and Germany has come together in the beautiful surroundings of the Bavarian monastery "Kloster Seeon". This volume assembles the products that have resulted from the lively interaction.