The Intersection of Law and Psychology: Bridging Legal Reasoning and Human Mind

This Blog is Written by Shalini Yaduwansh, 2nd Year, BA LLB, NMIMS, Chandigarh.

Introduction

Law is based on rules and precedents. The aim of law is to be fair and logical. But sometimes law is affected by the thoughts, feelings and biases of human brain which affects choices, witness stories and court decisions. Psychology helps to explain the reason behind these issues and shows way to solve them. It also shows how unconscious biases affect judges. This article will help to understand the connection between both Law and Psychology. The aim is to blend the two fields to make a more human centric justice system.

Legal Reasoning and the Human Mind

Legal reasoning is used by judges to decide a case by using law in a logical manner. They look at the fact and then at relevant laws and after considering all the necessary factors, judges give final judgement of the case. But in this process, their decisions sometimes get affected by personal bias, thought or feelings. The aim is to deliver justice fairly. Yet, they face tough choices, like balancing rights or interpreting unclear laws. Cognitive bias is a serious problem. It means a thinking error which affects how people understand information and make their decisions based on that. Anchoring bias happens when the first piece of information—like a suggested sentence—sticks and influences the final decision. Judges are humans too. Therefore, their emotions such as anger, pity or fear can change the way they see the same facts depending upon their mood.

Psychology in Criminal Justice and Evidence

Crime involves human behaviour so law alone is not enough, Psychology is also required in order to understand the cause behind that crime. Law often asks – was a crime committed? But psychology asks – why that person committed that crime? Eyewitnesses are very important in a case and court often relies on them. But Psychology shows that memory of a person is often affected because of fear and stress and it changes over time. Studies show eyewitnesses make mistakes in 30-40% of cases, leading to wrongful convictions. Brain has tendency to fill the missing details so police questions often fill those gaps unintentionally which often leads to a False Memory. Not everybody is Punished equally in law. There are people who suffer from mental illness or insanity. They are unable to understand their actions as well as consequences. So, when they commit any crime, law does not punish them the way they would have punished if the crime would have been committed by any sane person. If law gives equal punishment to both sane and insane person, then it would be unfair. Here, Psychology helps court answer that were they able to understand the difference between right and wrong and also could they control actions? In such cases, court relies on psychologists, expert testimony and psychiatric evaluations. They help in deciding Legal responsibility of the court. Traditional system only believed that the criminals must be punished for their wrong doing. So, they were given harsh punishments but when they came back from jail, they used to commit crime again. This is called Recidivism. Recidivism rates stay high at 60-70%. Psychology focuses more upon Rehabilitation than Punishment. As crime often comes from thinking as well as behavioural patterns. Therefore, it is necessary to fix that thought mechanism. Instead of only punishment, Counselling and therapy like things can help criminals transform their thought.

Challenges and the Need for Psychological Integration

• Challenges: Law and psychology easily do not work together even if they should. Both Lawyer and psychologist come from different background having different trainings. Lawyer and judges focus more on statutes, fact, evidence and reasoning. On the other hand, Psychologists deal with human behaviour and emotions. They cannot give absolute conclusions as it is often based on observations and probabilities. Therefore, when they work together, there is a scope of misunderstanding. Both fields use different terminologies. Lawyers use legal terminologies such as burden of proof, admissibility etc. And psychologists use psychological terms like cognitive bias, trauma response. So, it becomes difficult for them to understand each other’s terminologies and it may lead to misinterpretation. Psychological research is conducted in laboratories with small number of participants under controlled conditions. Whereas Court deals with complex human behaviour and with real crimes.  So, judges sometimes believe that the research result does not apply to the real case in its true sense. Psychologists’ results are based on personal belief and all of them interpret it differently. Sometimes psychologists may disagree with each other and that could create a lot of confusion for the court. So, judges hesitate to rely heavily on psychological experts.
• The Need for Psychological Integration: In order to ensure fair justice, psychology must be integrated with law. Cognitive biases cause 20-30% of judicial errors (Wistrich et al., 2010). In India, the gap is huge. Some of the practical solutions for Reforms are as follows: Judges should learn the basic psychology like a short-term course which will teach them the basics which will further help them in deciding a case. India has a vast population but the number of forensic psychologists is limited. So, more experts should be trained so that they can guide judges. The Evidence act,1872 allows experts opinion but it does not include modern brain science such as brain scans and psychological testing. Special Mental health courts should be established which could focus more on treatment and rehabilitation. It will reduce recidivism by 25%. Along with this, future lawyers should be taught psychology while they are pursuing their course.

Conclusion

Legal rules alone cannot deliver justice. Understanding human behaviour and their mental process is equally important. The intersection of both law and psychology is crucial for fairness in justice. Even though both are different disciplines, they complement each other. The integration has the power to transform legal system and improve outcome for individual. There are challenges in order to integrate them but solutions are also not much difficult.