In our daily decision-making processes, attitudes play an important role. An attitude is an evaluative judgement of a person, object or an issue on a scale of favorability. A large amount of research has been done on the role of attitudes in our daily decision-making processes. There is, however, a gap in empirical knowledge when it concerns the role of attitudes in the professional judicial decision-making process. It has been accepted that the professional judicial decision-making process has a subjective element, but this subjective element remains unexplained. Attitudes are inherently personal and subjective, and they can make our decision-making process easier. They can, however, also be the basis for biases and prejudices. Herein lies a potential risk, especially in the professional judicial decision-making process. If attitudes play a role in the decision-making process of judges there is a possibility that impartiality, one of the judiciary’s core professional values, might be unobtainable. To see whether attitudes play a role in the professional judicial decision-making process semi-structured interviews will be conducted among judges, who will also be asked to fill in a scenario survey. Hopefully the obtained data will lead to a start in filling this gap in empirical knowledge.

This contribution provides an overview of the legal and criminological research into the decision following the determination of a supervisor that the conditions of a freedom-restricting sanction are not met. It is an important decision, on the one hand because it can result in a more severe sanction than was initially imposed, on the other hand because a decision that is perceived as unfair can influence the extent to which suspects and convicts are willing to comply with conditions, and recidivism. Yet little research has been conducted into this decision. The legal safeguards with which it is accompanied are lagging behind those of the original sentencing decision. Undeserved according to penitentiary experts. The scarce empirical research shows that decision-making involves many different layers and that the actors involved have different goals, ranging from deterrence and emphasizing the credibility of the system to the successful completion of the sanction. Even in countries where regulations have been tightened considerably, the discretionary power of direct supervisors, such as employees of the working project or therapists, is still large. This raises the question to what extent the final decision maker (usually a judge) still has sufficient room to make an independent decision.

Fifty years ago, Gary Becker’s seminal article on the economics of crime and punishment was published. This paper reviews the theoretical developments in the field since then and takes stock of the strenghts and weaknesses of the economic approach.

Over the last two decades, there has been a growing interest in the development and implementation of knowledge management systems. In the judicial context, these knowledge management systems are designed to support judges in the decision-making process by providing them with the knowledge that they need in order to deal with doubts or uncertainties in complex cases. However, less attention has been given to the related process of knowledge sharing between judges. In order to optimally benefit from the knowledge available in the organization, this process should be better understood and acted upon. The aim of this research project is to gain a better insight into the interactive process of knowledge sharing between judges. To this end, a research model has been developed which will be quantitatively tested on the basis of survey responses from judges.