ABSTRACT
The traditional view of law in democratic societies is that it is objective rather than subjective—free from bias and somehow divorced from the ailments of the society that it governs. But science tells us that we should be sceptical of this view because legal actors, like everyone else, have implicit biases shaped by their experiences and those ideational resources that animate culture and very much influence how we see the world. And when unchecked, these biases can operate to subvert rather than facilitate justice. For example, when legal actors unconsciously rely on problematic narratives and stereotypes in their decision-making processes, even unconsciously, they undermine rather than serve justice. Using the Caribbean case of Pompey v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), in this chapter I argue that the court's decision is informed by culturally powerful frames that legitimate male violence and reproduce gendered inequalities, albeit unconsciously. While the judgment outwardly constrains and condemns male violence against women, the rape frames that pepper the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions undermine those constraints, canonizing the same problematic thinking that it attempts to upend. I argue further that one way to get the right law is to use qualitative frame analysis (QFA) to affect the sensibilities of judicial officers by making them aware of their implicit biases and the problematic tropes on which the law relies.
