Do personal values tip the scales of justice? Rachel Cahill-O’Callaghan Cardiff Law School Supervisors: Richard Moorhead and Jiri Priban Acknowledgements : This research was funded by the Cardiff Law School PhD Scholarship. What are personal values? Psychologists define personal values as enduring beliefs that a specific mode of conduct is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct. Personal values play a central role in decision making. Extra-legal factors have been implicated in judicial decision making including ideology, activism and demographic variables. Personal values influence ideology and activism and are influenced by demographic variables. Theoretically personal values could influence legal decisions A psychological model of personal values Schwartz created a model of values which relates values to the overarching motivation. For example; Universalism: The motivational goal is understanding, tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people. The values include equality, social justice, broad-minded and a world at peace. Tradition: The motivational goal is respect, commitment and acceptance of the customs and ideas that one’s culture or religion impose on an individual. This values include respect for tradition and customs and preserve the world order as is. Values on opposing sides of the circle cannot be held in equal regard. Achievement Ambition, Wealth Hedonism Pleasure, Enjoy life Stimulation Varied life, Daring Self-direction Freedom and Independence Universa lism Environment, Equality, Social Justice Benevolence Forgiveness, Helpfulness Tradition Religious, social Conformity Power Authority, Influence Influence Security Family, national security and social order Part I : Do judicial opinions supporting opposing decisions express different values? Value content analysis of judicial opinions in R (on application of E) v JFS Governing Body : A case which divided the Supreme Court Content analysis of the judicial opinions was carried out in Nvivo and a value coding scheme developed on 18 cases which divided the Supreme Court. The legal question Did the admission policy which required that the child be an Orthodox Jew base on criteria set out by the Office of the Chief Rabbi breach the Race Relations Act 1976? Value analysis of legal opinions Green = Majority Opinions, Blue = Minority Opinions Majority Opinion Held: The policy breached the Race Relations Act Content analysis of majority Opinions revealed that the majority espoused values encompassed within Universalism and Self- Direction. “JFS discriminates in its admission requirements on the sole basis of genetic dissent by the maternal line from a woman who is Jewish, in the Mandla, as well as the religious sense. I can see no escape from the conclusion that this is direct racial discrimination.” Lord Phillips, 10 Minority Opinion Argued either there was no discrimination or that the discrimination was justified based on it’s religious motivation. Content analysis of the minority opinions revealed that the minority espoused values encompassed in Tradition. “Here the discrimination between those who are, and those who are not, recognised as Jewish was firmly and inextricably rooted in Orthodox Jewish law, which it is the duty of the Chief Rabbi to interpret and apply.” Part II : Can the value: decision paradigm be reproduced experimentally? Conclusions Computer-aided textual analysis reveals that majority and minority opinions have different value profiles. Experimental evidence reveals a significant relationship between personal values and legal decisions. Personal values may play a significant role in decision making in cases which divide the Supreme Court. Vignette Based on JFS Contained within a survey instrument of six vignettes based on Supreme Court cases. Decision and Reasoning Respondents were asked to decide the case and rate 17 factors that may have influenced their decision. Psychometric Assessment of Values Respondents were asked to complete a Schwartz value questionnaire. Experimental Survey – 18 respondents Majority (n = 11) No breach of Race Relations Act Universalism More highly universalism was rated more likely to reach this decision (r s = 0.402). Tradition More highly tradition was rated less likely to reach this decision (r s = 0.28). Minority (n = 7) No breach of the Race Relations Act Tradition More highly tradition was rated more likely to reach this decision ( r s =0.275) Universalism More highly universalism was rated less likely to reach this decision(r s = 0.40)