Even well-intentioned defense attorneys harbor an unacknowledged bias blind spot

Evidence

In chapter 5, Lyon and Smith show that even seemingly well-intentioned actors, such as criminal defense attorneys and investigators, may contribute to racially disparate criminal justice outcomes. The authors ask a key question: how does communication—and breakdowns therein—manifest in similarly situated individuals being treated differently on account of race? In drawing on their extensive experience working on the defense and interacting with defendants, the authors identify a bias blind spot in defense attorneys. Change will only come if defense attorneys acknowledge the possibility of bias in their own behavior and discuss the issue within the defense bar, with clients, and with the public. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 32

Categorization

• XREF: Directly bears on the reader’s core question: professed good intentions (defending the accused) do not predict freedom from measured bias — the sincere-conviction-vs-measured-bias divergence in an institutional actor.
• SEED: Angle for the bias-in-law piece: the legal actors whose professional identity is ‘on the side of the accused’ nonetheless carry a measurable bias blind spot — highlighting blind-spot effects in even adversarial advocates.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 32