Cognitive Barriers to Equal Justice before the Law

Abstract

Recently there has been growing concern with the degree to which the legal needs of the American public-and, more particularly, the poor in America-are being met. The inpetus for such concern has been the realization that if the protection of individual rights depends on income or social class, many individuals will not be guaranteed equal rights. Several studies have documented some of the structural barriers (primarily of an economic nature) to equal justice before the law. Others argue that while economic theories may help account for the adequacy of legal services, they do not fully explain patterns of contact between the public and attorneys. Instead, the overall social organizational characteristics of legal institutions are seen to best account for legal service utilization. We argue that a third set of variables are critical in understanding legal service outcomes. These are labeled social psycho logical disincentives for seeking legal assistance. At the affective level one finds deeply ingrained negativism toward lawyers and the broader legal system more generally. At the cognitive level, there are at least two major problems: 1) lack of information as to the availability of legal aid, and 2) lack of information on basic rights. The assumption guiding the present study is that injustice may be too frequently tolerated because of ignorance of both basic rights and of avenues for the redress of injustice. To test this assumption, data are examined from interviews conducted with four subsamples (total sample size was 398 respondents) selected from several communities in a Rocky Mountain state. Results indicate that ignorance of basic rights is widespread among all samples but is very closely related to such socio-economic characteristics as education and income levels. Some consequences for the functioning of the system are examined.

Do People Know the Law? Empirical Evidence about Legal Knowledge and Its Implications for Compliance

“…Five of the ten statements concerned criminal law, such as: 'In a trial, the presumption of innocence means that an accused person must prove charges are false.' Similarly to Sarat's study, Albrecht and Green (1977) also found variation in legal knowledge about criminal law. Two of the five statements had a very high number of correct responses.…”

“…Most studies analyse legal knowledge in light of a particular legal domain and a particular issue (family law and divorce rights, labour law and worker rights, health law, criminal law and education law). There are some broader studies that assess legal knowledge across domains (Williams and Hall 1972;Sarat 1975;Albrecht and Green 1977;Denvir, Balmer and Buck 2012;Denvir, Balmer and Pleasence 2013). Also, we see that some studies have focused on the legal knowledge of particular experts (doctors, teachers, school principals) and laypersons.…”

“…On other key issues of criminal procedural law, citizens were, however, frequently mistaken. These included the right against selfincrimination (48 per cent correct), the presumption of innocence (40 per cent correct) and the protection against double jeopardy in criminal cases (55 per cent correct) (Albrecht and Green 1977).…”

Arab Americans’ Confidence in Police

“…It is unreasonable to estimate perceptions of one part of the government while totally disregarding public views of other parts of the government (Ivkovic, 2008). Indeed, a strong relationship has long been observed between public attitudes toward police and other parts of the government (Albrecht & Green, 1977; Goldstein, 1977). On the basis of data from 28 countries, Ivkovic (2008) found that a significant determinant of public support for police was their thoughts about other state institutions, including the armed forces, Parliament, and legal system.…”