Emotions and the courtroom

Courts and judges are essential for the administration and symbolization of justice in developed, developing and transition countries. The rule of law relies on impartial adjudication by judges who decide cases and exercise authority without fear or favour. This understanding of legal authority has often been interpreted as requiring the suppression of emotion because emotions are viewed as inherently irrational, impulsive and personal.  Courtrooms and the judiciary have strong norms regulating the display of emotions in court.   Nonetheless, courts are settings of considerable emotion. Face-to-face interaction involving the judicial officer and other participants, especially defendants in criminal cases, can elicit a range of emotions. 

This paper draws on empirical research – surveys and court observations – to investigate the roles of emotions in the everyday work of magistrates and their courts in Australia.  It focuses on the ways in which magistrates deliver their decisions on sentence in criminal matters. The imposition of a sentence is an occasion where there can be direct interaction between a defendant and the judicial officer with considerable potential for emotional expression and management. Communication of the sentence can be structured in three ways:  giving the decision only, giving the decision followed by reasons, or giving the reasons first followed by the decision.  These different structures can extend or reduce opportunities for emotion performance and management on the part of the magistrate. The research demonstrates the significance of emotions, especially in sentencing, in a context – the courtroom—where the conventional model of legal authority disavows emotion.