Judicial Temperament

     What is a judicial temperament?

     Well, to begin with, what is it that a judge is supposed to do? We want them to listen patiently to all of the evidence and argument provided in a case, to consider it all impartially and render a reasoned, fair decision at the end. That's the external behavior we expect of them, but temperament is a matter of internal behaviour. I want to suggest that internally, we should want a judge to behave exactly the same way.

     There is a widespread view that we want a judge to put their emotions aside. I think this is not quite the right way to think of things. Emotions are an important part of our cognitive tool box, and should not be ignored. But they do need to be thoroughly cross-examined critically, because what they actually mean is not always what it seems.
     Imagine, for example, that you are hearing testimony from a man accused of sexual harassment. With great anguish, he talks about the pain and shame these accusations have brought to him and his family. Just imagine, he implores you, how you would feel if you were falsely accused of such heinous behaviour.
     And yeah, you figure, you'd probably feel pretty terrible. Maybe even more upset than he is. And so something in your gut tells you he's innocent.
     See, emotions can be misleading. Not his -- they're probably 100% authentic, though to be sure, they don't show he's innocent; a guilty person would feel every bit as much shame and fear and anger at being truly accused. So the fact that he's expressing genuine emotions isn't really strong evidence either way.
     No, it's your emotions that may be misleading you, and so you need to inquire more deeply into exactly what it is you're feeling here. You're seeing a man who is clearly suffering, whether that's deserved or not, and decent people naturally feel uncomfortable at seeing suffering. And it's clear that what is causing this suffering is that he is being suspected of truly shameful behaviour, and that means you can easily do something to help ease it: you can stop suspecting him, and maybe get angry at the other people who are still subjecting him to this cruelty.
     Your gut isn't telling you he's innocent; it's telling you to stop accusing him. They're not the same thing. Once you recognize this is what your emotion is telling you, you can evaluate it appropriately. It's not wrong to want to drop the matter, but there are lots of things we want to do that we recognize we shouldn't. The judicious approach is to listen to that feeling, understand what it really means, and then to listen just as carefully and critically to the counsel of all your other emotions and faculties before rendering a decision. What makes this difficult is that a strong emotion often seems to be urging you to ignore all these other considerations; a judicial temperament is one which resists that urge.

     This is actually the theme in Plato's Republic. The well-constituted city (a metaphor for the well-balanced human soul) is populated by the artisans (representing the material appetites), the guardians (representing the passions) and the philosopher kings (representing reason). Reason rules, but it must do so with regard for the needs of the other constituents. It must listen to and consider carefully their counsel, but it must not abdicate the actual decision-making power to any of them.