THE IMPACT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE ON THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

 The ability of judges to combat the subjective biases and prejudices inherent in the
human perceptual and decision making processes is dependant upon identification and
heightened sensitivity to the various categories of potential bias and their manifestations.
 This section of the article will discuss some of the more widely recognized forms of bias
and their manifestations within and among the judiciary.
 The categories discussed herein by no means purport to be an inclusive list. Indeed,
biases and prejudices are largely subjective and can be extremely individualized. The
categories listed below, however, are areas that have been widely identified as common
manifestations of bias in the judicial system.

Categories of Bias:

1. Gender Bias
 Over the past several decades, the judicial system has been scrutinized for gender-
discriminatory practices and policies.
 Most recently, this scrutiny has been undertaken by the judiciary itself in the form
of a task force movement. Many state supreme courts have formed commissions
to study the extent and impact of gender bias on the judicial system.

2. Racial and Ethnic Bias

 Racial bias is a second major category of judicial bias that has received a
significant amount of research and commentary. Considerable scrutiny was
focused on the court systems' treatment of racial and ethnic minorities in the
beginning of the 1960s and continuing throughout the 1970s.
 The scrutiny appears to have subsided somewhat, although the problem of racial
and ethnic bias persists. The operation of these biases may be less overt, which
partly explains why the topic is not discussed with the frequency and fervor it
entertained in previous decades, but recent research clearly indicates that racial
and ethnic bias in more subtle, covert forms exist.

3. Other Areas of Bias

a. Regional Bias

 Closely linked to ethnic bias is the category of regional bias.

 Very little research or commentary exists on this topic. However, the possibility
of regional bias operating in the decision-making process of a judge cannot be
dismissed.
 A Vermont case demonstrates regional bias in operation. A New Jersey citizen,
injured while skiing on Vermont's slopes, brought a personal injury action in a
Vermont district court.
  The attorney representing the defendant, a condominium association, engaged in
regional bias trial tactics by repeatedly emphasizing to the jury that the injured
plaintiff was an outsider and that the citizens of Vermont, including the judge,
jury, defendants, and defense attorney, were all a unified collective.
 The trial tactic was successful in the trial court, but proved ultimately fatal for the
defendants on appeal. In reversing the verdict, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals held that "[n]o verdict may stand when it is found in any degree to have
been reached as a result of appeals to regional or other prejudice.

b. Economic or Wealth Bias

 Poverty may be another area where bias impacts decision-making. Some

researchers claim that wealth bias has a negative impact on criminal defendants
and civil litigants. It is also suggested that there is a strong link between the
operation of poverty bias and racial bias and that poverty bias is really just an
indirect form of racial bias.

Individual Bias

 Though no responsible judge consciously allows considerations of individual bias

to influence the result or reasoning of particular cases, judges are human beings,
and no human being is perfect.

 Thus, individual bias in decision making occasionally occurs.

 With regard to general interpretive bias, a natural law judge is likely to view the
Constitution through a natural law lens.

 Though acknowledging that some provisions of the original Constitution did not
reflect a sound natural law position, as in the case of slavery," a natural law judge
can be predicted to view more clauses of the Constitution as embodying natural
law principles than judges who adopt other interpretive styles.

 For example, without regard to who is right, it is no surprise that natural law
judges tend to hold that the Eighth Amendment's ban against "cruel and unusual
punishment" embodies the natural law principle of proportionality of
punishment," while formalist judges tend to reject that view.

 With regard to specific case bias, one must consult the past experiences and