Abstract
Like other Western legal systems, the Swedish legal system constructs objectivity as an unemotional state of being. We argue that the enactment of objectivity in situ relies on objectivity work including emotion management and empathy. Building on qualitative interviews and observations in Swedish district courts, we analyse courtroom interaction through a dramaturgical lens, highlighting tacit signals and interprofessional emotional communication aimed to secure objective procedures, while sustaining the ideal of unemotional objectivity. By analytically separating objectivity from impartiality, we show that judges’ objective performances balance empathic attunement and restrained expressions to uphold an impartial presentation. Prosecutors take pride in maintaining objectivity in spite of being partial, fostering the ability to switch between engagement and disengagement depending on the strength of the case. The requirement for legal professionals to be autonomous demands skillful inter-professional emotional attuning. Thereby, collaborative professional emotion management achieves the ideal of justice as being objective. Al igual que otros sistemas jurídicos occidentales, el sueco construye la objetividad como un estado del ser no emocional. Argumentamos que la aplicación de la objetividad in situ se apoya en un trabajo de objetividad que incluye la gestión de las emociones y la empatía. Basándonos en entrevistas cualitativas y en observaciones en juzgados de Suecia, analizamos la interacción que se da en el tribunal, destacando señales tácitas y comunicación emocional interprofesional destinada a asegurar procedimientos objetivos, a la vez que a sostener el ideal de objetividad no emotiva. Al separar analíticamente objetividad de imparcialidad, mostramos que las actuaciones objetivas de los jueces suponen un equilibrio entre la sintonía empática y la contención expresiva para defender una presentación imparcial. El requisito de que los profesionales del derecho sean autónomos demanda una sintonía emocional interprofesional. Por tanto, la gestión emocional colaborativa de los profesionales cumple con el ideal de justicia objetiva.
Highlights
Abidance by law requires a widely shared trust in the function of the judicial system to uphold objectivity
We continue to explore judicial objectivity in practice as a continuous and situated process, but contrary to previous research on judicial emotion management, we focus on the interactional aspects of objectivity work, based on interviews and observational data, including shadowing, of legal professionals’ work
By analysing how objectivity and impartiality are actualized and performed in real life court interactions, this article confirms previous studies showing that the enactment of objectivity in court relies on situated work; doing objectivity by balancing engagement and detachment (Jacobsson 2008, Roach Anleu and Mack 2019)
Summary
Abidance by law requires a widely shared trust in the function of the judicial system to uphold objectivity. The verdict and the sentence is decided through a simple majority vote by the professional judge and the lay judges, but since the lay judges are required to heed the judicial expertise of the professional judge their power is deemed to be limited in practice For these reasons, our analysis leaves the lay judges out. The role of the professional judge follows common law procedures in that the judge presides in court and is in charge of order and security but is not active in choosing or presenting evidence and abides to norms of dispassion (Dahlberg 2009, Maroney 2011). Thereafter we present an analysis of our own data, followed by a concluding discussion
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
