This study investigates the impact of legal expertise on moral decision-making biases by comparing the decisions of 45 criminal judges, 60 criminal attorneys, and 64 controls. The study examined how these groups' decisions were influenced by information on the transgressor's mental state, gruesome language in harm descriptions, and physiological states. Judges and attorneys, similar to controls, overestimated damage from intentional harm. However, they showed less bias in punishment and harm severity ratings for accidental harm and were less influenced by language or physiological arousal. This suggests that legal expertise can mitigate certain biases in moral decision-making.

Sandra Baez, Michel Patiño-Sáenz, Jorge Martínez-Cotrina, Diego Mauricio Aponte, Juan Carlos Caicedo, Hernando Santamaría-García, Daniel Pastor, María Luz González-Gadea, Martín Haissiner, Adolfo M. García, Agustín Ibáñez