Unfair by Adam Benforado

Introduction

Summary of the book Unfair by Adam Benforado. Let us start with a brief introduction of the book. Picture standing in a quiet courtroom, feeling the tension in the air as everyone waits for the gavel’s rap. Now imagine you’ve just learned that the entire structure—the police procedures, the interrogation tactics, the jury’s perceptions, the judge’s decision-making—can be powerfully swayed by hidden biases, flawed memories, and snap judgments. Unfair reveals a troubling truth: the U.S. justice system is not the perfect machine of fairness we might hope for. Instead, it’s shaped by human vulnerabilities—brain quirks, cultural assumptions, personal backgrounds—that lead to unfair outcomes and tragic mistakes. But this isn’t just a story of despair. By examining the factors that warp our legal system, we discover new paths forward. Through scientific understanding, careful reforms, and honest self-reflection, the system can improve. Instead of blindly trusting old methods, we can reinvent justice, ensuring everyone is treated not just legally but also morally fair.

Chapter 1: Witnessing How Snap Judgments and Dehumanizing Labels Distort Our Perception of True Human Worth in Unexpected Ways.

Imagine walking down a quiet street late in the afternoon and seeing a stranger slumped on the curb. The person’s clothes are dirty, and there’s a dark stain on their jacket. Without any other evidence, your mind might instantly conclude this person is simply drunk or irresponsible. That quick guess probably happens before you’ve even thought about calling for help. This kind of rapid, automatic labeling occurs in countless situations every day. We rely on immediate impressions—often formed in just seconds—because the brain naturally tries to conserve mental energy by swiftly sorting people into tidy categories. Whether someone is judged as harmless, dangerous, victim, or delinquent can depend on minimal cues: a stain, a posture, an accent, or clothing style. Sadly, when the label is wrong, the results can be devastating, causing real harm, missed opportunities for assistance, or even preventable deaths.

These hasty judgments are not merely casual mistakes; they directly influence the way professionals respond in critical situations. For example, imagine firefighters or paramedics arriving at a scene and instantly misreading a victim’s condition because superficial cues cause them to assume the person is drunk rather than injured. If first responders trust their rapid, automatic mental shortcuts and never slow down to ask careful questions, the victim may never receive the right treatment in time. Similarly, law enforcement officers could misjudge an unconscious individual as a mere troublemaker. By taking these mental shortcuts at face value, they skip the deliberate, thorough thinking steps needed to consider alternative explanations. One wrong label can lock everyone into a false understanding of reality, limiting rescue efforts and sometimes costing a life that could have been saved.

On a deeper level, this labeling does more than just cause single tragic incidents. It shapes how society views certain groups, particularly those in tough life circumstances—like the homeless, addicts, or individuals who behave unexpectedly due to mental health issues. Research shows that when people observe those who are severely down-and-out, their brains sometimes fail to register them as fully human, as if these individuals lack normal feelings or complex inner worlds. Such unconscious distancing means that decision-makers—jurors, judges, police officers—might handle the cases of vulnerable people with less empathy or fairness. Dehumanizing labels like junkie or drunk wrongly transform living, breathing human beings with stories and struggles into nameless objects of disgust or suspicion, blocking pathways to understanding and justice.

To break free from these harmful snap judgments, we must learn to challenge our first impressions. This requires consciously pausing to reflect instead of rushing to conclusions. Could the person lying on the sidewalk actually be suffering a head injury rather than being intoxicated? Could the so-called criminal be another victim of unfortunate circumstances? Moving away from shallow labeling means acknowledging that human beings are complicated. Each one has a backstory and reasons for their behavior. By abandoning hasty mental shortcuts, we open ourselves to a more truthful picture of reality and ensure that people receive the care, compassion, and fair treatment they deserve. Correctly identifying and supporting someone in crisis, rather than dismissing them, can mean the difference between a life saved and a life lost.

Chapter 2: Unraveling How Relentless Interrogations and Coerced Confessions Twist Innocent Minds into Guilty Words.

It seems unthinkable that an innocent person would ever confess to a terrible crime. Yet in countless dark, cramped interrogation rooms, this is exactly what happens. Under unrelenting pressure, isolation, and strategically applied fear, ordinary people sometimes crack and admit to deeds they never committed. The process starts innocently enough: a suspect is taken into custody and questioned. But when police officers believe they have their culprit, they might push harder, shifting from polite questioning to aggressive grilling. Faced with extreme exhaustion, threats of severe consequences, or the false promise of leniency, a frightened suspect may give up. At that point, telling the interrogators what they seem to want to hear feels like the only escape route. However, once those false words are out, they can be nearly impossible to take back.

This unsettling tendency is rooted in how our minds interpret other people’s statements. Humans generally assume words reflect true beliefs. Even when we know that a suspect might be lying, we can’t help but treat their confession as genuine. This is why many jurors and even legal professionals struggle to accept that innocent people might confess under pressure. The classic police interrogation methods, such as the widely used Reid Technique, exploit human psychology by wearing down suspects. Hours pass with the same intense questions and the looming threat of harsh punishments if the suspect doesn’t comply. Eventually, the suspect may feel that confessing, even falsely, is the only way out. This might trade immediate relief from abuse for a future behind bars. Over time, these aggressive methods create a system that mistakes surrender for truth.

The damage from coerced confessions extends far beyond an individual’s suffering. When police officers and prosecutors rely on such confessions, the real perpetrators of crimes remain free. Wrongful convictions tear families apart, robbing innocent people of years of their lives. Even after evidence emerges proving a suspect’s innocence, reversing the damage can be incredibly difficult. Public trust in law enforcement and the courts erodes when communities see innocent people locked away based on confessions extracted through fear. Moreover, police officers themselves may believe the confessions they obtain, convinced of their suspect’s guilt from the start. This leads them to overlook or ignore contradictory evidence, reinforcing a closed loop of flawed reasoning and misplaced certainty.

Reforming these interrogation practices requires a serious shift in mindset. Investigators need to be trained to collect information rather than force confessions. They must learn that a suspect’s silence or confusion isn’t a sign of guilt but could reflect fear, despair, or mental vulnerability. Video recordings of entire interrogations could help ensure fairness, preventing selective editing that highlights only the confession. Judges and juries should also be educated about the high risk of false confessions, especially among young, mentally ill, or highly stressed individuals. By changing these ingrained habits, the justice system can move closer to uncovering genuine truths rather than compelling hollow admissions of guilt. Only then can we restore faith that the words spoken in an interrogation room truly match the reality of what happened.

Chapter 3: Digging Beneath the Surface: Brain Injuries, Circumstances, and the Complex Puzzle of Criminal Behavior.

We often think of criminals as bad people who freely choose to commit crimes. Yet this black-and-white view ignores the hidden biological and situational forces that can push a person toward wrongdoing. Our brains are delicate organs, shaped by genetics, injuries, illnesses, and chemical imbalances. Sometimes, when certain areas of the brain are damaged, previously kind and loving individuals can suddenly develop alarming impulses. Take the unsettling story of a man whose growing brain tumor led him to act out horrific urges that vanished entirely once the tumor was removed. Such cases blur the lines between criminality and unfortunate biology, making us question who is truly responsible when something in the brain goes haywire.

Beyond biology, the situations we find ourselves in can also transform good intentions into harmful acts. Classic experiments have shown how ordinary people, when placed in positions of authority or social pressure, might do unthinkable things. Consider a scenario in which a respected, gentle neighbor is pressured into using violence under the orders of a figure who appears to be a legitimate authority. Suddenly, the line between just following orders and personal responsibility becomes murky. Poverty, traumatic childhood experiences, social isolation, and community violence also create conditions where criminal acts can sprout more easily. These factors don’t excuse wrongdoing, but they help explain why some people are drawn into crime while others, facing different environments, remain law-abiding.

Science backs up these ideas with sobering statistics. Large numbers of prisoners show evidence of head injuries or neurological issues that might have contributed to impulsive outbursts or skewed moral judgment. When the prefrontal cortex, responsible for decision-making and emotional control, is damaged, a person may be more likely to lash out violently. When the amygdala, tied to emotional processing and fear responses, is altered, cold and calculated criminal acts can occur. Seeing these patterns helps us realize that what we call evil behavior is sometimes more a matter of neurological misfires than simple moral failings. Understanding these complexities doesn’t mean we excuse crimes, but it can guide us toward more compassionate and effective solutions.

Ultimately, acknowledging the influence of brain injuries and social pressures reshapes our entire view of justice. Instead of seeing criminals as purely wicked, we can recognize them as people shaped by unfortunate circumstances or biological quirks. This perspective encourages us to focus on prevention and rehabilitation. If we identify and treat neurological problems early on, and if we address the social conditions that foster wrongdoing, we can reduce crime more effectively than if we rely solely on punishment. Society benefits when we intervene constructively—providing mental health care, addiction treatment, brain injury rehabilitation, and stable community support—rather than simply locking people away. Understanding the roots of criminal acts can guide us toward justice systems that heal rather than blindly punish.

Chapter 4: Revealing How Lawyers and Prosecutors Uphold Their Own Virtue Even as They Bend Ethical Rules to Win.

When we think of unethical behavior, we often imagine shady characters who know they are doing wrong. Yet many people who bend rules or behave dishonestly still see themselves as good, moral individuals. High school students who cheat on tests, employees who inflate expense reports, or citizens who break small laws often justify their actions to maintain a positive self-image. The legal world is no different. Lawyers and prosecutors—people who have pledged themselves to fairness and justice—can also fall into this trap. They may conceal evidence, twist facts, or pressure witnesses, all while believing they are on the side of righteousness. The problem is that clever justifications help them sleep at night, even as their actions lead to unfair outcomes.

These rationalizations become easier when legal professionals create psychological distance between their actions and the harm caused. For example, a prosecutor might argue that withholding a piece of exonerating evidence doesn’t really matter because the defendant seems guilty on another charge. By compartmentalizing their behavior—focusing only on the trial at hand and ignoring the possible life-or-death consequences—they protect their self-image as a person fighting for justice. In reality, such actions can lead to innocent people being convicted or forced into harsh plea deals. The need to win, score convictions, or secure career advancement can override the ethical principles that should guide every move in the legal arena.

But why do they do this? The human brain is skilled at self-deception. Lawyers might tell themselves that the defendant is a real threat, so bending a rule here or there is a necessary evil to keep dangerous criminals off the streets. They may convince themselves that their misconduct is minor compared to the harm the suspect allegedly caused. Over time, these mental gymnastics allow them to become comfortable in a role that routinely skirts ethical lines. Their colleagues, the competitive environment, and the high stakes of the courtroom all encourage maintaining a spotless self-image, even if it’s built on shaky ground.

Addressing this problem requires a cultural shift within the legal system. Training programs could encourage honest reflection, teaching prosecutors and defense attorneys to question their biases and identify moments when ambition blinds them to ethical failings. Mechanisms for accountability—such as independent review boards—can help ensure that evidence tampering or dishonest tactics come to light. Creating incentives that reward honesty and discourage result-driven unethical conduct can gradually reshape the profession’s values. By fostering genuine integrity, we can ensure that legal warriors do not only win cases but also uphold the principle that every individual deserves fair, unbiased consideration. In the end, restoring ethical clarity to the legal field is essential for building a justice system worthy of public trust.

Chapter 5: Understanding How Juror Backgrounds, Media Angles, and Faulty Memories Intertwine to Shape Verdicts in Surprising Ways.

Most of us believe that evidence speaks for itself and that fair-minded jurors will see the truth plainly. But the reality is more complicated. Jurors do not enter the courtroom as blank slates; they carry with them their life experiences, personal values, cultural backgrounds, and subconscious biases. These factors can dramatically influence how they interpret evidence, view the defendant, or react to a witness’s testimony. Two individuals watching the same video of a police chase might see completely different stories unfold—one might blame the suspect for reckless behavior, while the other might suspect excessive police force. Such differences often arise from each juror’s worldview, shaped by personal history, education, political leaning, and societal position.

At the same time, technology and media play subtle yet powerful roles. The camera perspective used to record an interrogation or a crime scene can guide a juror’s interpretation. When only the suspect’s face is visible, jurors might focus on the suspect’s demeanor and believe that any confession is genuine. But if the camera angle reveals the police interrogators’ aggressive tactics, jurors might view the confession as coerced. Similarly, how evidence is presented on screen, the footage chosen by prosecutors, or the emotional tone of media coverage before a trial can tilt opinions. Without realizing it, jurors rely on these angles to form a narrative that seems coherent to them, even if it’s incomplete or misleading.

Complicating matters further, human memory is notoriously shaky. Witnesses, thought to be pillars of truth, can easily misidentify suspects or recall events in distorted ways. Stress, fear, or the shock of a crime scene can reduce accuracy. Over time, memories fade or morph, influenced by hints, suggestions, or subtle pressure from investigators. A confident eyewitness might persuade jurors, yet that confidence does not guarantee correctness. Mistaken identification has led to countless wrongful convictions. While eyewitnesses were once considered gold-standard evidence, research now shows they must be treated with caution.

The net effect of these factors is a fragile evidence system, where juror backgrounds, camera angles, and unreliable memories can mix into a judgment that may or may not reflect reality. To improve fairness, we must acknowledge that jurors need better guidance. Education about the limits of memory, training to spot coercive tactics, and instructions to consider their own biases could all help. Judges should ensure that evidence is presented in balanced ways, free from manipulative angles. By understanding the psychological and perceptual pitfalls in play, we can create a courtroom environment where truth is more likely to emerge. Only then can we hope that verdicts reflect reality rather than unconscious leanings or shaky recollections.

Chapter 6: Exposing the Fragility of Expert Judgment and the Quiet Influence of Judicial Biases Hidden in Everyday Decisions.

We often imagine that experts—like seasoned detectives, forensic scientists, or trained lie detectors—can cut straight to the truth. Sadly, evidence shows that so-called experts are no better than ordinary people at detecting lies or navigating tricky truths. Contrary to popular belief, you can’t reliably spot a liar by noting shifty eyes or fidgeting hands. In fact, many studies show that the average person’s ability to distinguish truth from lies hovers near random chance. Professionals in the legal system, despite their training, are equally prone to error and misguided assumptions. This shakes our faith in their authority and calls us to rethink how much weight we give to expert testimony in court.

Judges, who are supposed to represent the pinnacle of impartiality, also fall prey to their own biases—sometimes subtly, sometimes openly. Their personal experiences, political leanings, cultural backgrounds, and even something as mundane as hunger can influence decisions. Studies have found that judges are more inclined to grant favorable rulings early in the morning or right after lunch, when their mental energy is replenished. As hours pass and cognitive fatigue sets in, they lean toward the easier, safer choice—often resulting in harsher outcomes. Additionally, a judge’s worldview can tilt a decision one way or another. For instance, those with certain family structures might show more sympathy in gender-related cases, while judges with strong ideological leanings may side more predictably with either prosecutors or defendants.

The lack of diversity on the bench amplifies these problems. If most judges come from similar racial, social, or economic backgrounds, their judgments can consistently favor certain groups and disadvantage others. Without a range of perspectives, courtroom decisions risk reflecting a narrow slice of society’s experiences. The result is that certain populations—people of color, the poor, or those with marginalized identities—end up facing a justice system stacked against them. This reality breaks the illusion of blind justice and highlights the pressing need for reforms.

To fix these issues, we need to accept that experts are not infallible and that judges are human. Creating checks and balances—such as rigorous standards for expert testimony, greater diversity among judges, and periodic review of rulings—can help. Technology and data-driven tools may reduce reliance on subjective human judgment. Transparent oversight panels could spot patterns of bias, prompting remedial training. Emphasizing self-awareness and ongoing education for judges could encourage them to question their own tendencies. Ultimately, acknowledging that both experts and judges have blind spots is the first step toward a fairer legal system. By reducing the influence of individual quirks and flawed assumptions, we can strive for more consistent, evidence-based outcomes that serve everyone equally.

Chapter 7: Unmasking How Vengeful Urges and the Destructive Practice of Solitary Confinement Undermine True Justice.

Anger, resentment, and the thirst for payback run deeper in our justice system than we care to admit. While we claim our courts and prisons aim to deter crime, rehabilitate offenders, and keep society safe, there’s a silent craving for retribution that influences sentencing and prison conditions. This longing for vengeance can lead to harsher punishments that don’t actually improve public safety. Imagine reacting more fiercely to a shark that killed a sympathetic victim than to one that killed a less innocent person. The underlying need for payback twists justice into an uneven scale—lighter treatment for those who harm unsympathetic victims, and crueler treatment for those who harm the cherished. Such instincts show that our punishments often arise from emotional impulses rather than rational considerations.

Racial bias, stereotypes, and snap judgments about a defendant’s worthiness also seep into punishment decisions. Studies show that people tend to support harsher sentences if the offender is Black or doesn’t fit certain cultural expectations. Intelligence, beauty, even the simple act of apologizing can sway the public’s and judges’ moods. The idea that punishment should match not just the crime, but also the victim’s perceived value and the offender’s perceived worth, reveals a disturbing patchwork of emotional biases. Instead of treating all humans equally, we weigh punishments based on who the people are, how they look, and what kind of emotional response they generate.

Nowhere are these misguided impulses clearer than in the ongoing use of solitary confinement. This extreme isolation is a form of punishment often rationalized as necessary for control or personal reflection. But far from encouraging moral insight, cutting a human being off from virtually all contact crushes their spirit, ignites mental health crises, and deprives them of essential social connections. The loneliness gnaws away at the psyche, leaving scars that make re-entering society far harder. Instead of reducing future crimes, solitary confinement can produce more broken individuals, less capable of building stable lives once released. Meanwhile, other countries have moved away from such punishments, focusing on rehabilitation and positive relationships rather than punitive isolation.

To move past vengeful justice and destructive punishments like solitary confinement, we must question why we punish as we do. Does it really help anyone to compound suffering upon suffering? Countries that focus on making prisoners into better neighbors rather than burying them in misery see far lower rates of repeat offenses. It’s time for the United States to examine whether revenge-based tactics actually protect the public or simply satisfy a dark emotional urge. If we let empathy and reason guide our corrections system, we can create environments that genuinely help offenders change, learn skills, and rejoin society in constructive roles. Leaving behind the thirst for vengeance is a difficult step, but it leads to a more humane and effective approach to public safety.

Chapter 8: Overcoming the Triple Hurdles of Self-Delusion, Rule-Bending Habits, and Closed-Door Legal Knowledge to Achieve True Fairness.

Reforming an entrenched justice system is no easy task. For decades, we’ve relied on the comforting myth that personal self-reflection, common sense, and good intentions are enough to keep biases in check. But as we’ve seen, that’s not how the human mind works. The first challenge is to break the illusion that we can simply think ourselves unbiased. When jurors claim that someone’s nationality or race doesn’t matter to them, they create a false sense of certainty about their impartiality. This mental trickery prevents them from acknowledging their own blind spots. To move forward, we must admit we are all vulnerable to hidden biases that require constant vigilance, training, and structural safeguards to counteract.

The second hurdle involves the ways that police, lawyers, and judges bend rules within a framework that assumes rational choice. Our laws often rest on the belief that people commit crimes or unethical acts as a matter of free will and calm calculation. But this view misses the messy reality of psychological forces, social pressures, and neurological tics. Until the legal system recognizes that decisions—good or bad—can stem from flawed thought processes, it will remain difficult to correct these underlying issues. We must redesign rules, guidelines, and training so that they acknowledge human vulnerabilities. For instance, if interrogations produce false confessions, we need better, more humane methods of interviewing suspects and more realistic understandings of human behavior.

The third barrier is the uneven distribution of legal knowledge and resources. Wealthy, well-connected individuals can navigate the legal landscape with ease, hiring top attorneys and exploiting every loophole. Meanwhile, those who are poor, less educated, or from marginalized communities struggle to grasp their rights, negotiate fair plea deals, or even understand the charges against them. Without democratizing legal knowledge, we end up with a system that punishes ignorance as much as it punishes crime. To tackle this, we must broaden access to legal resources—improving public defense services, developing clearer legal guides, and using technology to help citizens understand their options. Knowledge should not be reserved for the privileged few; it should empower all citizens to engage with the system on equal footing.

Confronting these three challenges—our self-delusion about objectivity, the outdated rules that ignore real human psychology, and the narrow channels of legal knowledge—can gradually tilt the balance toward fairness. Admitting vulnerability is not weakness; it’s a necessary step toward growth. By acknowledging that our minds and institutions are flawed, we open doors to meaningful reform. Training programs that help judges and jurors detect their own biases, new guidelines that improve evidence collection and interrogation methods, and initiatives that spread legal knowledge broadly can work together to reshape the system. With these tools, the pursuit of justice can become more than a lofty ideal—it can become a reachable goal, grounded in humility, honesty, and equal opportunity.

Chapter 9: Embracing Scientific Evidence, Technology, and Data-Driven Approaches to Reinvent American Justice on Firmer Ground.

After centuries of tradition and slow adaptation, the American justice system stands at a crossroads. We’ve long accepted outdated methods—eyewitness testimony that is often faulty, subjective judgments by tired human minds, and emotional biases—to determine guilt and punishment. But science and technology now offer promising alternatives. By relying on carefully tested methods, data analysis, and evidence-based strategies, we can build a new system that avoids the pitfalls of human error. The first step is shaking off complacency. We must acknowledge that just because things have always been done a certain way does not mean that way is fair or effective.

One transformative approach involves using scientifically tested training to reduce racial and other biases among police officers and judges. Visual exercises that pair positive images of Black leaders with negative images of infamous white criminals can break the unconscious link between race and suspicion. Imagining scenarios where a white assailant harms you and a Black stranger rescues you can rewire mental associations. Meanwhile, data analysis can help identify patterns of discrimination in sentencing or police stops. With transparent, publicly available statistics, policymakers can pinpoint where reforms are urgently needed. Other fields, like professional sports teams, have shifted from relying on gut feeling to using advanced statistics for their choices. The justice system can make a similar transition—replacing instinctual judgments with measurable evidence.

Technological solutions can further reduce the impact of flawed human faculties. Instead of parading defendants in court, where their appearance, facial expressions, or mannerisms might sway jurors, we could use virtual trials where personal identifiers are minimized. Advanced camera placement and standardized interrogation recordings can lessen the impact of biased angles. Automated tools might eventually help sort through large bodies of evidence, ensuring that no critical piece is hidden or forgotten due to human oversight. By trusting reliable, peer-reviewed research and scientific protocols over hunches and folk wisdom, we open the door to fairer, more rational decision-making processes.

These changes won’t be easy. The legal system is deeply woven into cultural identity, tradition, and the public’s sense of justice. Some may worry that using data and technology diminishes the human element. But the goal is not to remove humanity; it’s to stop letting prejudice, fatigue, and emotional whims steer decisions that affect people’s lives. Science, statistics, and structured methods can guide us toward more consistent, accurate outcomes. Through bold reforms—embracing new research, removing unreliable identification methods, reconsidering harmful punishments, and training legal actors in bias recognition—we can create a justice system that is more worthy of public trust. By doing so, we protect the innocent, hold the guilty accountable with less error, and respect every person’s basic human dignity.

All about the Book

Unfair by Adam Benforado uncovers the biases that shape our legal system, revealing how human psychology influences justice. This compelling exploration empowers readers to challenge prejudices and rethink fairness in law, making it a must-read for advocates of justice.

Adam Benforado is a prominent legal scholar and author, focusing on the intersection of psychology and law. His insights challenge existing norms, offering transformative perspectives that enhance our understanding of justice.

Lawyers, Judges, Social Workers, Psychologists, Policy Makers

Reading about social justice, Engaging in legal debates, Participating in community service, Conducting research on biases, Attending law seminars

Judicial Bias, Racial Injustice, Psychological Impact on Law, Systemic Inequities in Legal Outcomes

Justice is not blind; it is a mirror that reflects society’s flaws.

Michelle Alexander, Bryan Stevenson, Angela Davis

Silver Medal – Independent Publisher Book Awards, Finalist – Foreword Reviews’ INDIES Book of the Year, Best Book Award – International Book Awards

1. Understand biases inherent in the criminal justice system. #2. Recognize the influence of cognitive biases on outcomes. #3. Identify systemic flaws affecting legal justice delivery. #4. Learn how memory is unreliable in legal contexts. #5. Discover the impact of false confessions on justice. #6. Realize flaws in eyewitness testimony and recognition. #7. Understand psychological factors affecting legal decisions. #8. Identify prejudices in jury decision-making processes. #9. Examine role of emotions in legal judgments. #10. Understand racial disparities within the justice system. #11. Explore impact of socioeconomic status on legal outcomes. #12. Recognize implicit biases affecting police perception. #13. Understand the psychology behind wrongful convictions. #14. Learn about the influence of media on justice. #15. Explore ways to reform the justice system effectively. #16. Understand how environment affects criminal behavior. #17. Recognize limitations of forensic evidence reliability. #18. Understand the role of technology in legal reform. #19. Explore alternatives to current punitive approaches. #20. Realize importance of empathy in legal proceedings.

Unfair book review, Adam Benforado, criminal justice system, legal psychology, bias in the courtroom, social justice, non-fiction, books about fairness, American legal system, psychology of fairness, judicial bias, unconscious prejudice

https://www.amazon.com/Unfair-Adam-Benforado/dp/1610395092

https://audiofire.in/wp-content/uploads/covers/232.png

https://www.youtube.com/@audiobooksfire

audiofireapplink