Unfair: The New Science of Criminal Injustice
Adam Benforado
Language: English
Pages: 416
ISBN: 0770437788
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
"A law professor sounds an explosive alarm on the hidden unfairness of our legal system." —Kirkus Reviews, starred
A child is gunned down by a police officer; an investigator ignores critical clues in a case; an innocent man confesses to a crime he did not commit; a jury acquits a killer. The evidence is all around us: Our system of justice is fundamentally broken.
But it’s not for the reasons we tend to think, as law professor Adam Benforado argues in this eye-opening, galvanizing book. Even if the system operated exactly as it was designed to, we would still end up with wrongful convictions, trampled rights, and unequal treatment. This is because the roots of injustice lie not inside the dark hearts of racist police officers or dishonest prosecutors, but within the minds of each and every one of us.
This is difficult to accept. Our nation is founded on the idea that the law is impartial, that legal cases are won or lost on the basis of evidence, careful reasoning and nuanced argument. But they may, in fact, turn on the camera angle of a defendant’s taped confession, the number of photos in a mug shot book, or a simple word choice during a cross-examination. In Unfair, Benforado shines a light on this troubling new field of research, showing, for example, that people with certain facial features receive longer sentences and that judges are far more likely to grant parole first thing in the morning.
Over the last two decades, psychologists and neuroscientists have uncovered many cognitive forces that operate beyond our conscious awareness. Until we address these hidden biases head-on, Benforado argues, the social inequality we see now will only widen, as powerful players and institutions find ways to exploit the weaknesses of our legal system.
Weaving together historical examples, scientific studies, and compelling court cases—from the border collie put on trial in Kentucky to the five teenagers who falsely confessed in the Central Park Jogger case—Benforado shows how our judicial processes fail to uphold our values and protect society’s weakest members. With clarity and passion, he lays out the scope of the legal system’s dysfunction and proposes a wealth of practical reforms that could prevent injustice and help us achieve true fairness and equality before the law.
From the Hardcover edition.
Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread — The Lessons from a New Science
Fundamental Neuroscience (3rd Edition)
States of Consciousness: Experimental Insights Into Meditation, Waking, Sleep and Dreams
Your Brain: The Missing Manual: How to Get the Most from Your Mind
Worked for: James Ridgeway and Jean Casella, “14 Years on Death Row. $14 Million in Damages?” Mother Jones, October 6, 2010, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/09/connick-v-thompson. Now his number had come up: Connick, 131 S. Ct. at 1374–75 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). Riehlmann was a former prosecutor: Connick, 131 S. Ct. at 1374–75 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). It all started with: Connick, 131 S. Ct. at 1371 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). The only witness to the shooting: Connick, 131.
Characterization: Connick, 131 S. Ct. at 1366 (Scalia, J., concurring); Liptak, “$14 Million Jury Award to Ex-Inmate Is Dismissed.” As she described: Connick, 131 S. Ct. at 1370 (Ginsberg, J, dissenting). Bruce Whittaker, the prosecutor who had: Connick, 131 S. Ct. at 1372 (Ginsberg, J, dissenting); Connick, 131 S. Ct. at 1356. But neither man turned it over: Connick, 131 S. Ct. at 1356; Connick, 131 S. Ct. at 1372 (Ginsberg, J, dissenting). Then Deegan, who was working: Connick, 131 S. Ct.
Immediately became upset and denied involvement in the crime, but the detectives took him back to the Lake County Jail and continued to push for a confession. At around midnight, more than twelve hours after the day’s questioning had begun, Rivera broke down sobbing—crying so hard that he completely soaked his clothes. He wasn’t able to get the words out, but when the sergeant laid into him once again—“Juan, you were in that apartment with Holly Staker, weren’t you?”—Juan nodded. Over the next.
Simple Change in Camera Perspective Alters Verdicts in Simulated Trials.” Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (2002): 867–74. Lassiter, G. Daniel, Andrew L. Geers, Patrick J. Munhall, Ian M. Handley, and Melissa J. Beers. “Videotaped Confessions: Is Guilt in the Eye of the Camera?” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 33 (2001): 198–254. Lassiter, G. Daniel, Patrick J. Munhall, Andrew L. Geers, Paul E. Weiland, and Ian M. Handley. “Accountability and the Camera Perspective Bias in Videotaped.
And Scott Murphy. “Moral Dumbfounding: When Intuition Finds No Reason.” Unpublished manuscript, August 10, 2000. Harlow, Robert E., John M. Darley, and Paul H. Robinson. “The Severity of Intermediate Penal Sanctions: A Psychophysical Scaling Approach for Obtaining Community Perceptions.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 11 (1995): 71–95. Holmes, Oliver Wendell. The Common Law. Boston: Little, Brown, 1881. Hurwitz, John, and Mark Peffley. “Playing the Race Card in the Post—Willie Horton.