Though trained in traditional philosophy of law, I find your question to be perfectly appropriate.  The explosion in studies of brain function have identified the ability of humans to think in an "as-if" mode, which in effect gives them the ability to postulate alternative realities.  If that is what happens when humans create legal systems, the findings of psychology in this realm may turn out to be of great importance, and traditional legal philosophy may have to rethink itself.  Your previous question about anthropological studies may not go far enough. 

The biggest problem with attempting to put law within a scientific framework is that law demands certainty and science cannot grant it. Morality is also virtually impossible to reconcile with law. Morality is a set of values shared by a community while law is a set of rules imposed on one.

I would be hesitant about the assertion that "everyday psychologists discover a new fact about human cognition" That should probably read every day psychologists postulate another theory about human cognition. Having worked in both law and psychiatry, and specialised in Mental Health Law I have had many years of struggling to reconcile hard nosed legal rules with human needs.

It depends on what kind of a legal theorist one is. An understanding of psychology is essential in certain areas of law, especially contentious litigation or criminal law.

Importance of psy paves the fruitful mode in legal of science .The main good cause of our legal problems of any nature related the mind whether we should move to the extreme problem of criminal entity or so to say a revise problem in the marriage life & sometime the possession of children .

Whether we like it or otherwise ,a 5 elements remain very often in our conscious mind maybe this make come to us throu our Anger ,Action ,Greed ,Attachment ,Ego & Jealousy .

The said elements play a major part in our day to day working environment & in quite many ways ,this may be the good cause for procedding to legal dispute & the way to entrance of court..

But Psy can certainly become the day life of our such problem including controlling our five elements.Under the calm ,Cool & quite mind may help to control fast growing conscious mind & if our conscious mind receive such benefit result ,our subconscious mind may certainly help to our rescue & help to solve such problems .

Very often our subconscious mind may offer a wisdom -Guidance & help us the progressive way of our willpower .

There are many examples in which psychology has interacted with law, sometimes with controversial results. For instance, the work by Elizabeth Loftus (and others) on false memories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory

Though sometimes controversial, the knowledge that comes from psychology better informs judges/juries on how to interpret evidence they hear. Knowing, for instance, that just because an eyewitness legitimately believes what they state does not necessarily mean that what they "remember" was true might (appropriately) lead juries to require more conclusive evidence. Otherwise, you end up sending innocent people to jail, something which has regrettably happened more often than you might like to believe. Psychology has also informed juries and police interrogators on the pitfalls of certain aggressive forms of interrogation. It is quite possible, for instance, to get a confession out of someone for a crime they did not commit, or to distort an eyewitness' memory of an event they experienced.

@James R Schmidt ·

You are right, of course. Psychological knowledge can be helpful during a process of assessing eyewitness testimony or in case of interrogation. I wonder whether knowledge about cognitive biases, such as outcome bias or hindsight bias, can be used by judges/juries?; can it change a way how judges think about past events? Or let me put it in this way: should judges be aware of cognitive biases influencing their thinking "in the courtroom"?

@Barry Turner

I probably went too far with the "every day psychologists discover a new fact about human cognition" sentence. However, I am not necessary sure that law seeks the truth, and it needs certainty. I pretty sure that above all law should deliver disputes settlements. Of course, these settlements should be based on facts etc. However, certainty is some kind of regulative idea in Kantian sense. Neither law or science provides their own solutions with certainty. And yet, I think that legal systems need effective models of human behaviour, so - naturally - lawyers/judges should look for them in psychology. Am I wrong?

Hi,

it isn't wrong to desire that knowledge of psychology should contribute to legal understanding and decision making - most researchers in legal and forensic psychology actively pursue this. However, it isn't really true to suppose that the legal profession require hard facts - consider the requirement for 'beyond all reasonable doubt', and in judicial decision making, certain metrics or criteria are used as guidelines. Legal theorists would definitely benefit from including a psychological perspective.

In terms of the interface between psychology and law, the problem is transmitting this knowledge between professions. Too often legal professionals do not know, or do not understand, psychological research findings. We can't really expect them to if we only disseminate the information amongst ourselves.

I agree that the courts are perfectly capable of dealing with uncertainty. Possibly some expert witnesses are badgered into going beyond what the science can sustain by barristers. I also agree that there needs to be a better understanding of psychology by legal professionals, and this area of neurolaw is becoming increasingly recognized as important.

I think there are some important aspects that often are overlooked.

First of all, many "discoveries" in psychology are not very robust, and both expert witnesses and legal professionals evaluating the statements of experts should be aware of this. Assigning the correct value to a finding is of key importance. It is not uncommon that quack-scientists make unwarranted claims (this is true for other disciplines as well). However, robust psychological knowledge should of course be used in court.

Apart from the use of legal expertise in court, I think one major area where psychological knowledge could be better employed is in educating (and evaluating) legal professionals in their own decision-making biases. This is an area of psychology with quite robust knowledge and we know quite well that professional training and experience help quite little in removing cognitive biases in decision making. For example, how does prior experienced conviction/acquittal rates predispose legal professionals base-rate beliefs about guilt in a given case?

Third, although legal decisions claim to be based on "certainty", they are of course not. There is some probabilistic threshold, above (or under) which a decision is considered "certain". My personal belief is that being blind to this aspect of legal decision making, is also being blind to a psychological fact: There can be both incorrect and correct strong beliefs ("certainty") in a decision to acquit or convict. Personally, I have worked with investigations of alleged child sexual abuse, where the police, attorneys, and the court of course ask for a strict binary decision: did it happen or did it not. It is almost impossible to be completely certain about the ground truth. And to understand this uncertainty, is to understand the nature of psychological science. To beg for certainty is to misunderstand psychological science. What most often can be done is to move (a little or a lot) in "certainty space" from the base-rate probability.

Regarding morality, I find it somewhat of a naturalistic or genetic fallacy, to think that better knowledge about the "nature" of the human mind and behavior should affect how we perceive or judge (morally or legally) a behavior.

This is food for thought: Fact (result of patient observation, summation and deduction) is the beginning of science; for law, it is the end. Once a fact or set of facts are established, law simply looks at the relevant rule - guilty or not guilty - and decides the outcome.

Unlike 'morality' that seeks truth, law has no use for truth. It only needs facts that together either prove or disprove the probability of some occurrence "beyond reasonable doubt". That is why a smart lawyer can get a known smuggler off the hook while at the same time sending a minor to Borstal School for stealing an apple to quench his hunger. You just need the 'right' facts.

In this game of facts and proof, there is hardly any lawyer who will disagree that 'psychology' is very crucial for a successful practice. We look at whose chamber the case is being listed and cash in on a few 'past favors' to get our case listed in a more generous chamber; we also study the jury well in enough to understand their 'pulse'; the list is quite endless.

Apart from criminal law practice specifically, psychology plays a crucial role in investigation process, handling witnesses, people on parole, juvenile offenders, reformation home management, et al. Psychiatric help and counseling are important parts of dealing with crimes involving juveniles and flesh trade victims, not to mention mentally challenged witnesses/victims of crime/ accused.

Considering all these factors, the answer to the question is quite obvious.

Judges do not need to be 'trained' in psychology, they see it everyday and as lawyers they would have seen it everyday before they became judges (UK).  If an issue of technical evidence needs consideration then expert witnesses assist the judge.  

The role of the judge is to apply the law not evaluate issues in psychology.

I think the views of Jan and Srinivasn may be pertinent to judicial experience and decision making too.

The biggest issue for me is the challenge of neuroscience to the folk psychology that permeates the law. The views of Stephen Morse are instructive in that respect.

Are you John referring to the assumptions about internal motives and free will that are implied in our legislations and that modern neuroscience is currently underminding these assumptions? If so, then it is indeed quite problematic (but also very interesting).

Dear John and Jan, when you investigate roots of anthropological foundations of law (i.e. polish civil law) you will notice that they are based - what we think it is - on folk psychology and picture of human being that follow, but today folk psychology is XIX century academic psychology. Therefore we may have a situation when lawyers operates on conceptual framework from XIX century and don't even now it (internal will, external will, the concept of error). On the other hand, cognitive psychology developed terms which can be used to improve legal and judicial system, but using them in order to help law to be more effective demands lawyers  to realize that legal assumptions may be out of date (i.e. rationality of the judges). What do you think about such provocative thesis?

I very much agree that certain legal assumptions are out of date. The big difficulty is that if we can no longer ask jurors to use their own theory of mind, then how do we judge guilt? Do we involve a lot more experts? 

Great question. Maybe we can developed few solutions. Educate judges in behavioural science and psychology; provide them with handbooks about bounded rationality, will, self-interest, depletion of ego etc. Maybe something like that will help judges to use new insights from psychology during their judicial activity? 

I fear also a situation when experts will be judges of facts. It means when they will de facto decide whether someone is guilty; and judges without knowledge will have no tools to asses expert's testimony (whether it is pure science or maybe expert's interpretation or idee fixe).

Yes, a technocratic approach certainly is problematic. Trial by expert better than trial by jury? Arguably not.

I have no idea whether trial expert will be better than trial by jury, but in both these cases a well-educated judge will not hurt and maybe can help. Fuller wrote that law is the oldest human science and if someone wants to learn something about human psychology should investigate legal science. It's not the case anymore, I think.

I think it boils down to the assumption of guilt. I think this is a primarily moral concept that has been supported by earlier ideas in behavioral sciences, such as free will, agency a.s.o. And a completely deterministic view of the human psychology would not be compatible with this idea. I think one alternative is to  to simply judge acts and not at all consider motives. But this view interferes so strongly with our self-experience (as agents with free-will and good or bad motives) that it appears absurd.

Dear Jan, the problem of guilt is very important in legal science, but it's also only one problem and psychology challenges more anthropological assumptions than only free will. I also do not like the concept of 'free will', because most people use it differently. Much more important, imho, is the legal theory of decision making (is judge rational? is legal subject rational? how do they make decisions?). Mechanistic view of human nature is not really a threat for now. BTW, Owen Jones wrote a very interesting paper about behavioural models of decisions making in relation to law and other social sciences.

Yes, this is the big problem here - the issue of determinism. We "feel" that generally we are responsible for our decisions, and therefore we can hold people to account for them. The application of psychology can either work with that assumption, or try to overturn it. The latter would involve the abolition of the criminal justice system as we know it.

Boy I don't have any deterministic view of morality.  It seems to me you are lumping a lot of things together here.  There are some almost universal moral rules that exist across cultures and law is but one outcropping of those.  In the US for example attitudes toward abortion and women's right to choose are heavily influenced by religious affiliation, geography, education, SES, race, gender, family relationships, personal beliefs such as altruism, compassion, personal beliefs about the role one plays in helping individuals who are more disadvantaged.  Psychology is individual where as the law is cultural.  And who amongst us has not challenged and changed even deeply held values and beliefs across time based on individual personal experience.  We are in the midst of a mind boggling set of changes about individuals and attitudes toward homosexuality.  In the past two or three years, our culture has done almost an about face and it is based on the growing number of changes that are going on in greater and greater numbers of individuals willingness to adapt to change.  Some people are more comfortable with those psychological changes than others.  Some others are truly deterministic and very rigidly stick to generational beliefs.  The results are amazing to behold in the law.  As a liberal, I have a much less rigid, much more flexible view of morality and don't tend to be quite as dogmatic and punitive legally as others of my cohort.  But we get into some rip snorting debates for just those reasons.  I am always fascinated by how behaviors, laws, emotions, morals etc develop across lifespans and how things interplay to produce change.  I don't think you can understand any cultural or social norms and interactions without a deep and abiding understanding of human development:  cognitive, behavioral, emotional, moral, physical etc.

If we truly believe in individual choice, what happens to forgiveness.  If it is deterministic, are we not responsible for anything we do?  That doesn't mean we abolish the criminal justice system but it sure has resulted in the huge, huge disparity along racial lines for the same criminal behaviors with regard to drugs for example.  It is personally shameful to me, that my culture has such a racially based view of what is primarily a sociological and psychological set of mores that result not from race but from poverty.

I think you're confusing some concepts here, Alexandra. Determinism is not a concept that applies to morality is it? It applies to behaviour. 

I'm also not sure what this statement means - "Psychology is individual where as the law is cultural"?

In terms of being responsible for our decisions and holding people to account for them the law is not always precise.  Decision is only one part of the mens rea and other psychological factors can interfere with the decision making process without negating the guilty mind.

We allow provocation, during which an almost autonomic reaction results in violence as a defence only in murder.  Many psychological factors can operate to trigger the violent reaction such as age, intellect and exposure to earlier trauma. See R v. Camplin 1978 QB 254 and R v. Ahluwalia (1992) 4 All ER 889.

Provocation results in the mens rea for murder being negated, even where the intent to kill is still there.  Thus homicide in hot blood becomes manslaughter while homicide in cold blood is murder.  

Provocation does not act as a defence in non-fatal crimes against the person.  While it may mitigate the sentence it will not mitigate against a conviction.  Being 'provoked' to steal because you are hungry will not mean an acquittal at trial. 

Psychological issues are therefore crucial in the criminal justice process to determine which law applies in any given case and what the appropriate punishment fro a criminal act should be.

Provocation is seen as a partial justification, so the mere fact of loss of control is not sufficient. It has to be for a socially acceptable reason.

Expanding provocation to include duress and hunger just muddies the water rather. Duress from internal factors is not generally recognized as a legal excuse.

John

What was the 'socially acceptable reason' for fatally fracturing a man's skull with a chapati pan?

Is setting fire to your husband 'socially acceptable'?

Barry, have you ever read some of the more influence theories of moral development ( Kohlberg's)that are stage based.  One of the stories individuals are asked to think through is that of a spouse (but you might even substitute parent for some different and interesting answers).  Said spouse is seeking a life saving pharmaceutical needed to save his wife from otherwise certain death.  The drug manufacturer wanted $100,000 for the drug and said it was because he had to have that to provide for further innovation.  No matter what spouse did, he could not raise the funds for the drug.  So one evening, he broke into the factory where the drug was manufactured and stole the portion of the drug, his wife required.  He was ultimately caught and what the object of the exercise is is to reason through how you feel and would react to his "crime" and why.  People who have more sophisticated ways of dealing with morality and punishment view things from a more global perspective, not so much black and white, crime and punishment.  But it is also true that there are cultural differences in the various levels that people seem to attain.  Feminists got furious over this theory because women tend to be more relationship oriented and therefore saw right and wrong as based on the needs of the family whereas men were ostensibly more broad in their interpretation.  I won't go into the methodological issues that have been cited here, but there are still great debates that occur.  And indeed morality can be deterministic.  To one degree or another, most cognitive theorists in developmental psych have an evolutionary perspective on the development of cognition and morality as an off shoot.  And this entire topic is of really topical interest lately.

 About 193 of the worlds most renowned cancer physicians from some of the most prestigious medical institutions across the US have banded together recently to refuse to use drugs manufactured by the huge pharmaceuticals because they are so expensive that they are unaffordable to the people who need them.  Recently one of these doctors engaged in some research comparing Avastin with a newer drug.  The Avastin cost in the hundreds of dollars and the new drug cost in excess of $100,000.  The clinical efficacy of the two drugs was identical with the exception that the Avastin was slightly less toxic.  Both drugs added only 42 days on average to the lifespan of the patient.  So the Doctors at Sloan Kettering, refused to purchase the expensive drug and further published an article in the New York Times.  The next week, the drug manufacturer dropped the price of the new drug.  But what they did was to offer it to Doctors at the reduced price and the Doctors had to determine what they were going to charge the patients and the insurance companies.  

In another sample, Doctors at a famed medical center in Texas, did something similar but what was difference between the two drugs was that the expensive drug treated a very specific gene related issue in blood cancer so not only did this drug cost in excess of $100,000 for a very short period of time, but indeed it was known as a miracle drug and actually kept people alive on average of more than 10 years so patients had to come up with those resources every year or die. The same drugs in Europe cost a thousand times less than in the US because of the power of the Lobby group Pharma.  So it isn't really about innovation..it is about greed.  And I don't think you have to look to far to see the problems with morality and what is moral to some is not to others.    Sometimes the difference is only in our ability to deal with our deepest fears and what differentiates our behavior from others may be that when we cannot communicate our fears we react with anger, hostility and violence.  Either way, we have choices we make along the way

Barry,  I don't know where you got the idea that Judges are (1) not trained in psychology and (2) don't practice it.  It certainly isn't in our civil courts in North Carolina.  There are continuing education courses all the time either in using psychological principles to succeed in your case or to use the scientific principles to assist judges in determining what we refer to as the "best interests for children"

 I am presently reading a book focusing on the evolving and dynamic interdependence between the behavioral sciences and family law, specifically the role of the forensic evaluator when allegations of child maltreatment arise in child custody disputes.  In many ways the dialogue is one of the healthiest between the two disciplines (science and law;) because the role boundaries and expectations are more clearly delineated in the published literature than in other forensic or mental health roles.  

There are many challenges ultimately in the courts but also represented in law school for both lawyers and mental health practitioners.  One is to learn how to work in an adversarial context; another is to illuminate more on our understanding on what an expert is and how mental health professionals have a moral as well as an ethical obligation to set aside personal biases to meet the demands of their role.  Then there is admissability and finding ways of maintaining one's expertise keeping abreast of changing statutes, case law, research findings and developments in assessment methods and procedures.

 As Psychology has become more stringent in the use of scientific method, we cannot talk about facts but instead talk of hypotheses; there is no cause but probability.  This is no different however from Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Medicine etc.  In fact all of those disciplines contribute to a better understanding of human behavior and motivation.  Without additional training in law, finance, economics etc, we are asked to ignore the financial issues involved in equitable distribution of property in divorce for example and its effect on children,  while recognizing that such a factor may play a huge role in the Judge's decisions.  Similarly, factors outside of behavioral science such as religion or morality may have similar affects on judicial decisions.  

The relationship between law and psychology is difficult to manage and has led to great controversies about what is ethical.  But as efforts to define the roles between clinical and forensic functions, we are getting more and better ideas of what the proper roles are.  Evolving dialogues have resulted in interesting interdisciplinary demands such as the receiving of testimony that was never meant to leave the therapy office.

I face these dilemma's daily and am not always happy with the results but at least I do have a financial background (an earlier career) so I am not so frequently caught up short when role boundaries and expectations are redefined. and I realize when I enter the public sphere in court ordered treatment for instance are expected to contribute to the analysis of the best psychological interests of the child involved in a child custody dispute.  

So we are far far from the time when psychology and the courts were not taught and not practiced.  Most of my collegues also have degrees in Psychology (at least those who wear judicial robes) and work with families in both civil and criminal matters.

Alexandra

I have a limited experience of the judicial process in North Carolina but I must say I found what I saw disturbing.  A good friend and colleague was disbarred ( medical license suspended) for disagreeing with orthodoxy.  Loyal service in the US Navy did not help.

I have had the privilege to work in litigation from New York through Ohio and Louisiana and ever west though Utah into the most enlightened territory of California.  I do not believe I ever met one judge who would admit to being 'trained' in psychology. 

Barry, I am not certain what you mean by disagreeing with orthodoxy?  That could be anything from a minor infringement to actions which caused irredeemable harm to others.  I have to say I am enjoying this site, but am seriously amazed at the lack of specificity among scientific researchers in what and how they are intending to discuss or study a phenomena in almost any area.  I simply cannot imagine never seeing a judge that has training in psychology.  My daughter is a lawyer with every intention on becoming a judge and she has an undergraduate degree in Psychology.  Psychology degrees are common precursors to students who go on to become lawyers.  And the American Bar Association has traveling CLE courses by invitation to present some of the most important information dealing with various things such as violence in relations and problems (psychological issues) in the law in dealing with victimization.  That is just the tip of the iceberg.  I am going to a CLE this month on the use of specially trained parenting coordinators some of whom are lawyers and some of whom are psychologists.  And our courts daily deal with issues like alienation syndrome and how to reunite the child and parent who was alienated.  All of the judges in our family court are equipped to deal with these almost totally psychological issues.  So I just don't understand what you are saying.  It just doesn't tie to reality.

Barry, you've confused two distinct concepts here. The reason for acting is clearly quite separate from the action. If you look at the background to the reforms behind the statutory replacement for the provocation defence, this thinking is clear.

John

I do not believe I suggested anything other than mens rea and actus reus being different.  I am very familiar with the criminal law both here and in the United States from where we are adopting the concept of 2nd degree murder, a concept entirely based on 'state of mind'.  

Having defended a good many clients in Crown Court I am very familiar with the influence psychology has on both judges and juries, judges are people and they are as prejudiced as the rest of us.  I have seen plenty of examples of the psychology of the judge resulting in rather too severe, or rather too lenient prison sentences.  

As for the psychology in American courts, my experience there was of the poor defendant with the cheap suited, state appointed attorney as opposed the 'six thousand dollar suit syndrome' of the rich defendant's attorney.  I had further experience with the drug injured claimant with his/her pro bono lawyer taking on the super lawyers of the pharmaceutical industry with their Federal preemption and armful of amicus briefs.    I did enjoy the Qui Tam suits though and had a modest part in the imposition of the two biggest criminal fines in American history.  Pity the defendants stock value rallied, we are just about to hit them with an SEC violation too.

With criminal and mental health law being two of my main areas of specialism I have been privileged to see psychology and law work together for over 30 years, They sometimes work very well and often badly but psychology is a part of all human endeavour, it is odd that anyone would think it did not apply to the workings of the law.

Alexandra

Disagreeing with orthodoxy here meant objecting to the preposterous corruption of psychiatry in the wake of the DSM.  My friend, a psychiatrist with a distinguished scientific and military career upset the orthodoxy by challenging the ridiculous over diagnosing of children with ADHD and the catastrophic medicating of millions of American children.  

I agree that psychology is often a precursor to a law career, it certainly was in my case, I studied psychology and linguistics before moving on to law and worked in the mental health sector for years.  I still teach mental health social workers law to this day and we do lots of psychology and law.

I do know something of the role of psychologists as expert witnesses too.  I am chair of the qualifications and competence working group of the European Commission Think Tank on the use of experts in courts across the European Union.  Psychologists of all varieties will be one of the groups that will eventually be regulated. 

I thank you both for your observations on my 'confusion'.  May I assure you that I most certainly am not confused either on the legal principles, or the psychology.

Your confusion is not imagined, given that you have completely misinterpreted my comments about the nature of provocation as a partial justificatory defence, which is the current thinking and explains the limitations on the qualifying causes of provocation. Not sure why you go onto a tirade about psychology not being applicable to law, given that is very definitely not my position. I will leave it there for the minute.

John 

I do apologise for the 'tirade'  I mistakenly thought the question was about the importance of psychology in legal sciences.  You are probably right in your conclusion.  Lets leave it there...

Maybe it would be more helpful if we better understood the impact of the legal sciences on psychology...

I can resist in saying that I believe it matters what "law" you are dealing with.  I am presently working in "family law" and more specifically custody evaluation.  The practice of family law could not come close to delivering justice and the "best interest of the children" without being steeped in psychology, most particularly Developmental Psychology my own field of academic endeavor so as with so many questions I see here, I cannot get away from the need to say What the Hell do you want to know?  Be Specific.  What about psychology do you want to know has what to do with what kind of law?  Or case?  Cheap suits vs expensive suits isn't a matter of psychology it is a matter of economics and sociology if anything.  There is some kind of psychology I suppose in everything, but psychology refers to the individual not a society.  Not that it can't be utilize in that respect.  There was a developmental psychologist I revered named Uri Bronfenbrenner who ultimately was responsible for something we use every day in schools known as peer teaching because he found that learning and ultimately development was enhanced by support and that students responded well when they were in groups of peers who were slightly more advanced than themselves.  He also saw development as concentric circles beginning with the influence of biology and ending with the influence of the universe.  So in that sense it could be applied on a more global basis but it still refers to the psychology of the individual not a group.    

So I am just totally flummoxed about what it is you want to know?  Maybe if you lay out a scenario it would make sense.  But right now I just can't get over the way questions are asked.

 How about using multiple regression analysis? Seriously what does that mean?  Sorry I am just venting because I am having such a difficult time figuring out what people want to know here.  I was taught to be specific.  How in the world can a study be done without making specific hypotheses and asking specific questions.  That is how we define the methods right?  Same thing in this question.  What is the question?  Or maybe it is me and I am just a nutty American.

Though trained in traditional philosophy of law, I find your question to be perfectly appropriate.  The explosion in studies of brain function have identified the ability of humans to think in an "as-if" mode, which in effect gives them the ability to postulate alternative realities.  If that is what happens when humans create legal systems, the findings of psychology in this realm may turn out to be of great importance, and traditional legal philosophy may have to rethink itself.  Your previous question about anthropological studies may not go far enough. 

I find employment law to be fascinating...it makes little difference whether as a precursor or derivative of psychology...how the law and psychology "mix it up" is what interests me...I find myself, for the most part, engaged by both...that's where the learning takes place...it's been my primary focus as a researcher to better define both...find the essence of each and create something new... 

The study of procedural justice is one part of the more general study of the social psychology of justice. Like other areas of justice research, procedural justice begins with the hypothesis that there is a class of psychological reactions to adherence to or violation of norms that prescribe certain patterns of treatment or allocation. Norms that form the basis of the justice response can be divided into two categories, those dealing with social outcomes and those dealing with social process. Social psychologists and theorists in related disciplines often assume that people evaluate their social experiences in terms of the outcomes they receive and that their attitudes and behavior can be explained by outcome-based judgments.

The 19th and 20th century philosopher and psychologist Edward Westermarck elaborately discussed the as-if processes involved in establishing legal systems and systems of norms to deal with and prevent actions that could have detrimental effects on other individuals. Although Westermarck built on previos work by such giants as Hume and Smith, Westermarck's work resonates well with current neurobiological and psychological knowledge. I have myself translated some of his less known works and as an evolutionary psychologist and philosopher with an interest in the psychology and philosophy of law, I find his work well worth reading. He also goes to great lengths to provide empirical evidence for hisclaims. In particular I recommend The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas and Ethical Relativity. 

I thank Jan that what you are talking about sociology not psychology.  By its nature, psychology is the study of the individual.  When you are discussing norms, you are globalizing.  Then there is a specific branch of psychology which is sort of a hybrid..social psychology.  I think that field would fit most neatly in looking at norms.  Even clinical psychology and  developmental psychopathology doesn't really look at norms and compare individual behaviors against norms.  Certainly there can be a very broad spectrum of scores or if you choose, you could to qualitative study rather than quantitative and observational investigations.  But even so, these branches are not looking at "norms"  What you may want to observe is how individual behaviors, emotions, cognitions compare with those from other groups.  Hence we, hold variables steady so that we can get a better picture of what we might expect to see.  Another thing is that when we study psychological processes, we are studying the null hypothesis.  (i.e. how does gender contribute to academic selection )  or something like that.  The longer I am around the practice of the discipline of law, the more I realize how deeply individual traits, etc can predict behaviors.  Not cause and effect, but certainly significant correlations positive or negative