{"id":32438,"date":"2026-02-02T13:11:22","date_gmt":"2026-02-02T13:11:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/?p=32438"},"modified":"2026-03-09T14:23:58","modified_gmt":"2026-03-09T14:23:58","slug":"the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/","title":{"rendered":"The Emotional Architecture Of Justice: Why Feelings Belong In Courtrooms"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Anubhuti Raje*<\/sup><\/strong><\/h4>\n

I. INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/h4>\n

In the architecture of justice, reason is often cast as marble\u2013cold, stable, and immune to the tremors of human feeling. Legal education trains us to \u201cthink like lawyers<\/em>\u201d, to analyze without sentiment, and argue without emotion. The law, we are told, must be rational to be fair. Yet beneath the austere geometry of legal logic lies an invisible foundation: emotion. We are moved by outrage at injustice, empathy for victims, or the quiet satisfaction of fairness restored. These are not peripheral sensations but the moral pulse of the legal system itself.<\/p>\n

Paradoxically, it is the law\u2019s pursuit of pure objectivity that often makes it less just. The suppression of emotion in legal reasoning has created a system that prizes technical correctness over moral coherence. The result is what the philosopher Martha Nussbaum calls \u201cmoral blindness<\/em>\u201d, a failure to see what truly matters because one refuses to feel it.[i]<\/sup><\/a>Counterintuitively, then, reclaiming emotion within law is not a descent into irrationality; it is a return to our deepest capacity for reasoned humanity.<\/p>\n

This essay argues that emotion is not the enemy of justice but its architecture, the framework that gives law its legitimacy, empathy, and meaning. By tracing how law came to suppress emotion, examining the ways emotion shapes fairness and moral reasoning, and proposing pathways to rehumanize legal practice, it contends that a jurisprudence of feeling is essential to the future of justice.<\/p>\n

While this essay centres the courtroom as a site of emotional negotiation, it also adopts a broader perspective. Justice here includes not only the adjudication of disputes but the pedagogical and institutional processes that produce legal actors. The argument therefore, concerns the emotional foundations of fairness, both as a legal outcome and as a lived experience of the legal system.<\/p>\n

II. THE MYTH OF OBJECTIVITY: HOW LAW LEARNED TO SUPPRESS FEELING<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The law\u2019s mistrust of emotion is neither accidental nor recent. It is the product of centuries of philosophical inheritance, institutional conditioning, and professional identity built on detachment.<\/p>\n

A. The Rationalist Legacy<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Modern law was born in the Enlightenment\u2019s shadow, an era that elevated reason as humanity\u2019s crowning virtue. Ren\u00e9 Descartes\u2019 proclamation, \u201cI think, therefore I am\u201d<\/em>, made intellect the essence of existence, while emotion was relegated to the body: volatile, feminine, and suspect. Legal systems built in this image sought to exclude feeling as an obstacle to impartiality. Judges were trained to suppress empathy, advocates to subordinate emotion to argument. The rational mind, purified of sentiment, became the legal ideal.<\/p>\n

This aspiration toward impersonal governance was not neutral; it mirrored prevailing hierarchies of power. Colonial legal systems, for instance, justified their authority by characterizing Indigenous legal traditions as irrational or overly emotional.[ii]<\/sup><\/a> Similarly, the association of emotion with femininity reinforced a masculine ideal of judicial detachment, positioning reason not just as superior but as inherently gendered.[iii]<\/sup><\/a> The dismissal of emotion thus became a means of legitimizing who is permitted to exercise legal authority.<\/p>\n

This rationalist legacy found institutional expression in the pedagogy of the common law. From the first year of law school, students are taught to strip narratives of their emotional resonance, to see facts as \u201cmaterial\u201d or \u201cirrelevant\u201d. The case method, lauded for its analytical rigor, also conditions emotional detachment. To \u201cthink like a lawyer\u201d is, in effect, to unlearn the moral reflexes of ordinary life. As psychologist Susan Bandes observes, legal conventions in criminal lawyering has cultivated a deliberately narrow ideal of emotional intelligence that rewards the performance of neutrality while the discipline itself overlooks the morally relevant knowledge that feelings disclose.[iv]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

B. The Cost of Emotional Erasure<\/strong><\/h5>\n

The irony is that emotion, not logic, often grounds moral discernment. Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio\u2019s groundbreaking work demonstrates that individuals who lose emotional capacity due to brain injury also lose the ability to make sound decisions.[v]<\/sup><\/a> Emotion, in other words, is not an intruder in reason but its catalyst.<\/p>\n

Yet the legal system\u2019s insistence on detachment exacts a profound cost. It alienates lawyers from their moral intuitions and from their clients\u2019 humanity. The culture of emotional suppression contributes to burnout, compassion fatigue, and depression at rates higher than in nearly any other profession.[vi]<\/sup><\/a> It also distorts judgment: when empathy is disallowed, cruelty can masquerade as neutrality. As Nussbaum argues in her study of public reasoning, a legal order that disowns emotion may still become ethically unbalanced, because detachment can slide into indifference toward dignity and toward the experience of suffering.[vii]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Thus, what began as an intellectual discipline has hardened into a psychological constraint. The myth of objectivity has not made law more just; it has made justice less human.<\/p>\n

III. FEELING AS EVIDENCE: THE PLACE OF EMOTION IN JUSTICE <\/strong><\/h4>\n

If emotion has long been exiled from the courtroom, its return is now underway. Recent decades have witnessed a quiet revolution in the philosophy of law, psychology, and neuroscience: the recognition that emotion is indispensable to fairness, empathy, and legitimacy.<\/p>\n

A. Emotion Enhances Moral Reasoning<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Contrary to the traditional dichotomy, emotion does not cloud moral judgment, it refines it. Compassion, anger, and guilt, when properly regulated, function as moral perceptions. They alert us to harm, injustice, and moral salience that purely cognitive reasoning may overlook. Damasio\u2019s \u201csomatic-marker hypothesis\u201d demonstrates that emotional cues enable individuals to navigate complex moral decisions that reason alone cannot resolve.[viii]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Legal philosophers have echoed this insight. Nussbaum argues that emotions are \u201cintelligent responses to the perception of value,\u201d integral to ethical judgment and civic life.[ix]<\/sup><\/a> Likewise, feminist legal theorists have long insisted that empathy is not a bias but a virtue, a bridge between abstract rule and lived experience. Without it, the law risks degenerating into what Catharine MacKinnon called \u201ca system of male reason pretending to be universal.\u201d[x]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Indeed, the Canadian Supreme Court\u2019s own jurisprudence has occasionally recognized the moral function of emotion. In\u00a0R v Lavallee<\/em>, the acknowledgment of \u201cbattered woman syndrome\u201d as a legitimate lens for self-defence marked an institutional willingness to let empathy inform justice.[xi]<\/sup><\/a> Such moments demonstrate that when courts make room for emotion, they do not compromise objectivity, they deepen it.<\/p>\n

Outside criminal law, similar dynamics emerge in administrative and human rights litigation.[xii]<\/sup><\/a> For example, tribunals assessing discrimination or harassment routinely evaluate the emotional impact of conduct to determine whether a reasonable person would feel demeaned or unsafe.[xiii]<\/sup><\/a> In these contexts, emotion does not undermine legal reasoning; it constitutes the very harm that law must recognize.<\/p>\n

B. Emotion Promotes Procedural Fairness<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Justice is not merely the correct application of rules; it is the experience of being heard, respected, and understood. Studies in \u201ctherapeutic jurisprudence<\/em>\u201d reveal that litigants who perceive judges as compassionate are more likely to accept even adverse outcomes.[xiv]<\/sup><\/a> Emotion, then, is a form of procedural fairness, a signal that the system recognizes the individual as a person rather than a case file.<\/p>\n

In this light, empathy becomes an institutional virtue. Courtrooms designed to acknowledge emotion foster trust and compliance; those that suppress it breed alienation. As psychologist Tom Tyler demonstrates through his theory of procedural justice, the perception that courts treat individuals with respect and grant them voice in the process encourages obedience and trust as strongly as, and often more durably than, the distributive result of the judgment.[xv]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Consequently, to feel is not to falter; it is to humanize the law\u2019s machinery. Emotional awareness among judges, lawyers, and jurors does not distort justice, it makes justice perceptible.<\/p>\n

Emotion also has an inward dimension that shapes the very practice of justice. Judges, lawyers, and students do not merely encounter emotion in others; they interpret legal situations through their own emotional lives. Neuroscientific research shows that emotional regulation and self-awareness support more accurate decision-making, while suppression impairs judgment under pressure. Cultivating reflective and compassionate engagement with one\u2019s own emotional responses, therefore, becomes not a therapeutic indulgence but a condition for ethical legal reasoning. Justice requires empathy for others, but it also requires a humane relationship to oneself.<\/p>\n

IV. REHUMANIZING THE LAW: TOWARDS AN EMOTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Recognizing the role of emotion in justice is only the first step. The greater challenge is to build institutions and practices that integrate emotion as a legitimate source of insight rather than a threat to rationality.<\/p>\n

At the institutional level<\/span><\/i>, law schools and firms must reimagine the skills that define professional competence. Courses in emotional intelligence, mindfulness, and trauma-informed advocacy should stand alongside courses in constitutional law and contracts. The ability to empathize, to listen actively, and to manage one\u2019s own emotional responses are not ancillary talents; they are professional obligations. As Lawrence Krieger and Kennon Sheldon found, lawyers\u2019 happiness correlates far more strongly with intrinsic values such as connection and compassion than with external measures like income or prestige.[xvi]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Firms and organizations, too, must confront the emotional austerity of legal culture. Billable-hour models that commodify time at the expense of well-being erode both judgment and humanity.[xvii]<\/sup><\/a> Counterintuitively, introducing flexibility, mentorship, and empathetic leadership does not dilute professional excellence; it sustains it. In this respect, emotion is not a distraction from productivity but its foundation.<\/p>\n

Procedurally, an emotional jurisprudence requires that legal processes account for trauma and vulnerability. Trauma-informed adjudication recognizes that memory, demeanour, and communication are shaped by psychological harm.[xviii]<\/sup><\/a> Courts in several jurisdictions have increasingly adopted trauma-informed and culturally contextual approaches, cautioning that survivor testimony and indigenous narratives must not be judged by stereotypical expectations of emotional stoicism or by a rigid demand for linear coherence.[xix]<\/sup><\/a> Likewise, restorative justice and therapeutic jurisprudence models emphasize dignity, participation, and emotional safety as prerequisites for meaningful legal outcomes. Here, emotion is not a threat to neutrality but a condition for access to justice.<\/p>\n

At the individual level<\/span><\/i>, lawyers and law students must undertake the quieter, more personal work of emotional awareness. To feel deeply in the face of suffering, injustice, or even failure is not weakness; it is moral participation in the life of the law. The cultivation of empathy allows advocates to represent clients more authentically and to see beyond the sterile categories of \u201cplaintiff\u201d and \u201cdefendant.\u201d Of course, emotion is not normatively pure. Sympathy can be unevenly distributed and may favour litigants who conform to dominant narratives of vulnerability, while anger can be weaponized to justify punitive excess. These risks, however, do not support the exclusion of emotion. They instead underscore the need for emotional literacy and regulation as professional competencies, ensuring that emotion becomes a lens for justice rather than a conduit for bias.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, the project of rehumanizing the law is both ethical and existential. Justice cannot be achieved by intellect alone; it requires emotional imagination, the ability to see oneself in the story of another. As philosopher Amartya Sen explains in the opening pages of The Idea of Justice, <\/em>rational inquiry is set in motion by the human response to clearly remedy injustice, revealing that affective concern drives the very practice of reasoning about justice.[xx]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

If the courtroom has long been a fortress against feeling, perhaps it is time to open its windows. Emotion does not weaken justice; it illuminates it. The heart, long exiled from the chambers of law, must return, not as a usurper of reason, but as its indispensable companion. A justice system that fails to engage with human feeling risks severing its legitimacy from the community it serves. Legal authority is not sustained by technical precision alone but by public trust, and trust depends on recognition of pain, dignity, and moral worth.<\/p>\n

—<\/p>\n

<\/a>* Anubhuti Raje is a final-year law student at Gujarat National Law University, India; Third Prize winner of the European Air Law Association Prize 2025, she frequently writes on human rights, constitutional law and public law.<\/p>\n

[i] Martha C Nussbaum,\u00a0Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions<\/em> (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) at 24 [Nussbaum, Upheavals of Thought<\/i>].<\/p>\n

[ii]<\/a> John Borrows,\u00a0Canada\u2019s Indigenous Constitution<\/em>\u00a0(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010) at ch 1.<\/p>\n

[iii]<\/a> Carol Smart,\u00a0Feminism and the Power of Law<\/em>\u00a0(London: Routledge, 1989).<\/p>\n

[iv]<\/a> Susan Bandes, \u201cRepression and Denial in Criminal Lawyering\u201d (2006) 9:2\u00a0Buff Crim L Rev\u00a0339 at 342.<\/p>\n

[v]<\/a> Antonio R Damasio,\u00a0Descartes\u2019 Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain<\/em>\u00a0(New York: Putnam, 1994).<\/p>\n

[vi]<\/a> Patrick J Schiltz, \u201cOn Being a Happy, Healthy, and Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy, and Unethical Profession\u201d (1999) 52:4\u00a0Vand L Rev\u00a0871.<\/p>\n

[vii]<\/a> Martha C Nussbaum,\u00a0Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice<\/em>\u00a0(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013) at 15\u201317, 120\u201323, 142\u201347, 203.<\/p>\n

[viii]<\/a> Damasio, supra<\/em> note v.<\/p>\n

[ix]<\/a> Nussbaum,\u00a0Upheavals of Thought<\/em>, supra<\/em> note i at 28.<\/p>\n

[x]<\/a> Catharine A MacKinnon,\u00a0Toward a Feminist Theory of the State<\/em>\u00a0(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989).<\/p>\n

[xi]<\/a> [1990] 1 SCR 852 [Lavallee<\/i>].<\/p>\n

[xii]<\/a> Belyea v Syncrude Canada Ltd<\/em>, 2018 ABQB 132.<\/p>\n

[xiii]<\/a> Robichaud v Canada (Treasury Board)<\/em>, 1987 CanLII 73 (SCC).<\/p>\n

[xiv]<\/a> David B Wexler & Bruce J Winick,\u00a0Judging in a Therapeutic Key<\/em>\u00a0(Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2003).<\/p>\n

[xv]<\/a> Tom R Tyler,\u00a0Why People Obey the Law<\/em>\u00a0(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006) at 45\u201347.<\/p>\n

[xvi]<\/a> Lawrence S Krieger & Kennon M Sheldon, \u201cWhat Makes Lawyers Happy? A Data-Driven Prescription to Redefine Professional Success\u201d (2015) 83\u00a0Geo Wash L Rev\u00a0554 at 592.<\/p>\n

[xvii]<\/a> Ibid<\/em> at 615.<\/p>\n

[xviii]<\/a> Judith Herman,\u00a0Trauma and Recovery<\/em>\u00a0(New York (NY): Basic Books, 1992).<\/p>\n

[xix]<\/a> R v DD<\/em>, 2000 SCC 43; Phool Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh<\/em>, (2022) 2 SCC 74 (HC India); Lavallee<\/i>, supra <\/i>note xi; Bugmy v The Queen<\/em>, 2013 HCA 37; Walden v Hensler<\/em>, (1987) 163 CLR 561, 75 ALR 173 (HC Austl).<\/p>\n

[xx]<\/a> Amartya Sen,\u00a0The Idea of Justice<\/em>\u00a0(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009) at 4\u20135.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

<\/div>
Partager cet Article<\/div>
<\/path><\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/path><\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/path><\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/path><\/g><\/path><\/g><\/circle><\/g><\/g><\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div>excerpt","protected":false},"author":932,"featured_media":32442,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"episode_type":"","audio_file":"","transcript_file":"","podmotor_file_id":"","podmotor_episode_id":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"","filesize_raw":"","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","iawp_total_views":250,"footnotes":""},"categories":[54,129,120],"tags":[155],"post-language":[1826],"publication-type":[1882],"volume":[1884],"issue":[306],"coauthors":[1897],"class_list":["post-32438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blog-post","category-legal-practice","category-legal-theory","tag-blog","post-language-english","publication-type-blog","volume-volume-57","issue-issue-1"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nThe Emotional Architecture Of Justice: Why Feelings Belong In Courtrooms - Ottawa Law Review<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"fr_FR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Emotional Architecture Of Justice: Why Feelings Belong In Courtrooms - Ottawa Law Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"By Anubhuti Raje* I. INTRODUCTION In the architecture of justice, reason is often cast as marble\u2013cold, stable, and immune to the tremors of human feeling. Legal education trains us to \u201cthink like lawyers\u201d, to analyze without sentiment, and argue without emotion. The law, we are told, must be rational to be fair. Yet beneath the […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ottawa Law Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-02T13:11:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-03-09T14:23:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/shutterstock_1420924517-scaled-e1634670981407.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"801\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Anubhuti Raje\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u00c9crit par\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Anubhuti Raje\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Dur\u00e9e de lecture estim\u00e9e\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label3\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data3\" content=\"Anubhuti Raje\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Anubhuti Raje\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/8e993c4a605b648c73ecba85b1e82cf8\"},\"headline\":\"The Emotional Architecture Of Justice: Why Feelings Belong In Courtrooms\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-02T13:11:22+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-09T14:23:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/\"},\"wordCount\":2244,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/shutterstock_1420924517-scaled-e1634670981407.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Blog\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Blog Post \/ Blogue\",\"Legal Practice \/ Pratique du droit\",\"Legal Theory \/ Th\u00e9orie juridique\"],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/\",\"name\":\"The Emotional Architecture Of Justice: Why Feelings Belong In Courtrooms - Ottawa Law Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/shutterstock_1420924517-scaled-e1634670981407.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-02T13:11:22+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-09T14:23:58+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/8e993c4a605b648c73ecba85b1e82cf8\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/shutterstock_1420924517-scaled-e1634670981407.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/shutterstock_1420924517-scaled-e1634670981407.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":801},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/home\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Emotional Architecture Of Justice: Why Feelings Belong In Courtrooms\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/\",\"name\":\"Ottawa Law Review\",\"description\":\"Revue De Droit D'ottawa \/ Ottawa Law Review\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/8e993c4a605b648c73ecba85b1e82cf8\",\"name\":\"Anubhuti Raje\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/d64f065faf97516e30f04dc11024400c\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9928b2f17d7858f89d562c86b730ee73ae6770b889bd23efd9e31a0e4ce27561?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9928b2f17d7858f89d562c86b730ee73ae6770b889bd23efd9e31a0e4ce27561?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Anubhuti Raje\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/author\/raje\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Emotional Architecture Of Justice: Why Feelings Belong In Courtrooms - Ottawa Law Review","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/","og_locale":"fr_FR","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Emotional Architecture Of Justice: Why Feelings Belong In Courtrooms - Ottawa Law Review","og_description":"By Anubhuti Raje* I. INTRODUCTION In the architecture of justice, reason is often cast as marble\u2013cold, stable, and immune to the tremors of human feeling. Legal education trains us to \u201cthink like lawyers\u201d, to analyze without sentiment, and argue without emotion. The law, we are told, must be rational to be fair. Yet beneath the […]","og_url":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/","og_site_name":"Ottawa Law Review","article_published_time":"2026-02-02T13:11:22+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-03-09T14:23:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":801,"url":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/shutterstock_1420924517-scaled-e1634670981407.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Anubhuti Raje","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u00c9crit par":"Anubhuti Raje","Dur\u00e9e de lecture estim\u00e9e":"11 minutes","Written by":"Anubhuti Raje"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/"},"author":{"name":"Anubhuti Raje","@id":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/8e993c4a605b648c73ecba85b1e82cf8"},"headline":"The Emotional Architecture Of Justice: Why Feelings Belong In Courtrooms","datePublished":"2026-02-02T13:11:22+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-09T14:23:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/"},"wordCount":2244,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/shutterstock_1420924517-scaled-e1634670981407.jpg","keywords":["Blog"],"articleSection":["Blog Post \/ Blogue","Legal Practice \/ Pratique du droit","Legal Theory \/ Th\u00e9orie juridique"],"inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/","url":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/","name":"The Emotional Architecture Of Justice: Why Feelings Belong In Courtrooms - Ottawa Law Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/shutterstock_1420924517-scaled-e1634670981407.jpg","datePublished":"2026-02-02T13:11:22+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-09T14:23:58+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/8e993c4a605b648c73ecba85b1e82cf8"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/shutterstock_1420924517-scaled-e1634670981407.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/shutterstock_1420924517-scaled-e1634670981407.jpg","width":1200,"height":801},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/the-emotional-architecture-of-justice-why-feelings-belong-in-courtrooms\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/home\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Emotional Architecture Of Justice: Why Feelings Belong In Courtrooms"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/#website","url":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/","name":"Ottawa Law Review","description":"Revue De Droit D'ottawa \/ Ottawa Law Review","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"fr-FR"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/8e993c4a605b648c73ecba85b1e82cf8","name":"Anubhuti Raje","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/d64f065faf97516e30f04dc11024400c","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9928b2f17d7858f89d562c86b730ee73ae6770b889bd23efd9e31a0e4ce27561?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9928b2f17d7858f89d562c86b730ee73ae6770b889bd23efd9e31a0e4ce27561?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Anubhuti Raje"},"url":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/author\/raje\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32438","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/932"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32438"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32438\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32882,"href":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32438\/revisions\/32882"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/32442"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32438"},{"taxonomy":"post-language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post-language?post=32438"},{"taxonomy":"publication-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication-type?post=32438"},{"taxonomy":"volume","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/volume?post=32438"},{"taxonomy":"issue","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue?post=32438"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rdo-olr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=32438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}