Performing impartiality: A qualitative socio-legal study on impartiality and emotional regulation in lay judges

Abstract: A fundamental principle for democracy and the rule of law is that the courts are independent and impartial, which extends to the conduct of judges and lay judges during the trial. In addition, there is the expectation of the courtroom being an unemotional setting, and seeing emotional displays in lay and professional judges could lead to a feeling of partiality in the audience. The aim of this thesis is to investigate and explore lay judges’ behaviours in court in relation to judicial impartiality and emotions by answering two interlinked research questions: How do lay judges reflect on their own and other lay judges’ performance, behaviours, and emotional regulation during trials? and What expressions and behaviours are prevalent among lay judges during trials? Furthermore, a third research question will be answered: What can the answers to the above questions divulge about lay judges performance of impartiality and management of judicial emotions? The empirical data has been collected through the use of two qualitative methods; semi- structured interviews and observations and the material has been analysed using the theoretical frameworks of dramaturgy and performance, emotional regulation, and feeling rules. The analysis and conclusions show that impartiality can be performed both through the utilisation of a poker-face or neutral expression as well as treating all parties equally. Furthermore, the lay judges use several strategies for managing their emotions to conform to the feeling rules of the courtroom. There are indications that there are discrepancies between the appropriate behaviour in court as described by the interviewees and the actual behaviour of lay judges observed in trials. This suggests that lay judges might do more than they potentially realise.