Implicit Bias In The Courtroom Summary

Jerry Kang’s Ted Talk and his article “Implicit Bias in the Courtroom” link implicit and explicit bias to attitudes and behaviors. Implicit bias was the primary focus for both, and in his study he was able to measure implicit bases and how if effects behavior by using the Implicit Association Test (IAT). He argues that implicit bias seems to predict to some degree our attitudes and behavior towards other people. In his article, he explains two situation, criminal and civil employment, cases within a courtroom where bias leading up to sentencing, plea deals, hiring, and verdict are all impacted by the implicit bias of the judge and the jury. To begin his argument he demonstrates how police encounters, charging and plea deals, trials, and sentencing are all affected by implicit bias. Police encounters are affected by implicit bias because the associations

First, to decrease the impact of implicit bias Kang suggests that his readers expose themselves to counter association in order to counter the stenotype with vicarious exposure. He suggests that in order to break the link we should alter the decision-making of judges and jurors. Judges should doubt their objectivity and begin learning more about unconscious thought processes; this would lead judges to be more skeptical about their own objectivity. We should scientifically educate judges with knowledge about implicit social cognition and judges should undergo early training and take IAT or other measures of implicit bias. Furthermore, jury selection and composition should be improved significantly according to Kang. Jurors should be individually screened, jurors should be educated about implicit bias, and juries should be more diverse. I think that all of these methods are important for improving bias within the courtroom, but this study’s findings and implementation suggestions might improve stop and frisk bias in New York, or employee discrimination