Public opinion about judicial roles and considerations

OBJECTIVE: To inform policies and practices that reflect the values and expectations of the communities that judges serve, we fielded a national survey of public perceptions regarding judicial roles and factors that could be considered in decision making. HYPOTHESES: We had four questions: (1) What is public opinion on the importance of various judicial roles and considerations? (2) Can distinct groups of respondents be identified on the basis of their views? (3) Do the groups differ in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and beliefs? (4) If so, can they be distinguished by their characteristics and beliefs? METHOD: We surveyed 4,861 jury-eligible adults through Qualtrics Online Panels. About half identified as men, and about two thirds as White; the mean age was 45 years. Respondents rated the importance of judicial responsibilities and considerations using 10 items adapted from a survey of trial court judges. We employed latent profile analysis to identify subgroups on the basis of their ratings and conducted univariate and multivariable analyses to examine differences across sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: A four-group model was the best-fitting and most interpretable solution. The largest profile (47.4%) demonstrated the highest ratings, suggesting that they valued due process, legal standards, expert knowledge, public safety, helping the accused, and community input. The second largest profile (39.5%) also valued legal standards, expert knowledge, and public safety but not public interests and community input. The next group (7.8%) generally rated all items as neither important nor unimportant, suggesting an ambivalence, lack of opinion, or limited interest in the issues. The smallest group (5.4%) rated all items as unimportant. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight areas of consensus and divergence and reveal distinct opinion profiles that can inform policy and practice. They also support the use of sophisticated measurement and analytic approaches that go beyond descriptive examinations of a single item or index to assess public opinion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)

Judicial opinion · Legal psychology · Political science · Public opinion · Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Jury Decision Making Processes · Law · Psychology · Social Psychology