Emotion and Cognition in Criminal Justice Decisions

Considerable tension exists between supporters of competing sides of a policy debate (e.g., liberals and conservatives). This book describes research probing how political partisans' decisions and emotions are affected by hearing statements that support or oppose their beliefs, such as are heard in political debates, or courtroom arguments. The primary focus is on how emotions and judgments are influenced in regards to the punishment or rehabilitation deserved by a defendant in a murder crime. A set of general beliefs underlying the opposing criminal justice attitudes are developed. These are also applicable to other policy issues such as affirmative action, immigration, terrorism and social security, as they relate generally to decisions regarding deservingness, blame and forgiveness. Some content describes how these beliefs relate to the perceived rate of verdict errors and likely guilt of defendants. Professionals interested in criminal justice beliefs or entrenchment in political controversy, as well as non-professionals interested in the general emotions and belief differences between rehabilitation or punishment supporters will find this work interesting and useful.