A Penchant for Prejudice: Unraveling Bias in Judicial Decision Making
A Penchant for Prejudice combines a detailed empirical study of the decision-making practices of judges with a sophisticated theoretical argument which exposes contemporary myths about judging and suggests methods of incorporating the inevitable bias that is detected in this and other studies. Based on a unique study of the decisions of Social Security judges, the book challenges the meaning of judicial impartiality. Linda G. Mills finds that, in practice, bias is a consistent dimension of what is considered "impartial" decision-making. The results reveal that impartiality as the legal system now defines it, is itself a form of bias, and that a historically and contextually sensitive definition of bias, one which takes account of the communities and cultures that come to be judged in the legal system, must overcome the modern dualistic notion of imparitality as the exclusion of bias in order to respond to needs of the diversity of applicants and the judges who adjudicate their claims. According to Mills, the judicial bias she found reflected in her study seems not only to essentialize and stereotype applicants but also prevents judges from engaging vulnerable claimants in a way that the legal process positively demands.
A Penchant for Prejudice will be of interest to students and scholars of law, judicial decisionmaking, and discrimination.
Linda G. Mills is Assistant Professor of Social Welfare and Law, University of California, Los Angeles.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
A Penchant for Prejudice
Chapter 2 Mandate for a Uniform and Affective Justice
A Record of Failure
Chapter 5 Disengaging Discourses
Signifiers of Stereotyping
Planning for Prejudice
Other editions - View all
12d Cir 1SSA ability accommodate claimants addictions adjudicators African,American alcohol ALJ hearing ALJs failed Appeals applicants asked assumptions attorney biased chapter claimants with special clinical CLMT counsel credibility determinations critical legal studies critical race theory cultural decision makers decision,making process denied benefits disability decision emotion engage claimants ensure evaluate explain factors federal court female feminist findings Hallex hearing process hearing transcripts Heckler i9th Cir ical illiterate impartiality involving issues judge's judges failed judgment judicial justice lawyers legal realists male mandate Mashaw medical evidence ment mental impairments Midland Park Miss Plain NOSSCR obesity opening statement percent prejudice problems procedural questions race racial record relevant reports represented revealed reviewed sample Schweiker Secretary of Health Shalala Social Security Administration Social Security disability Social Security Rulings special needs stereotypes subpt suggest tion transcripts and decisions treating physicians U.S. Supreme Court unrepresented claimants violations women