Even Affective Science has always included that emotions play a vital role in a human being’s life. They are regarded as an integral component of all human activities just as they manifest in social interactions (see Russell et al., 2003; Scherer, 2003; Sander et al., 2005); emotions are also evident in Uganda’s legal system, and emphasis is put on the criminal justice system. As Suzanne Karstedt forcefully argues, emotions pervade penal law and the criminal justice system.
I will derive my argument and the article in that line of the law. However, emotions in most cases also erode the legislators and erode their policies and lawmaking process. It also engulfs the executive, as seen when the President of Uganda, HE Yoweri Kaguta, ordered the installation of cameras on all city roads outlets after the assassination of the Deputy AIGP of Police Andrew Felix Kaweesi.
This was an action of grief and emotions. Cameras only aid in seeing who committed crimes but not to prevent them.
A question will be: did cameras stop or facilitate the reduction of crimes? The Daily Monitor on 15 March 2022 made it clear that 900 cameras in Kampala Metropolitan, which combines the capital and neighboring Wakiso and Mukono, do not work.
Did emotions work?I am aware that law has traditionally been regarded as the preserve of only reason, not passion; however, we ought to accept that emotions are at play in our criminal justice system in Uganda.
Many jurisprudents have argued that the criminal justice system is a public space of emotions.
Looking at the different sentences given by judicial officers who hide behind a number of reasons to qualify their judgments, but in the end, the truth is that these are only emotions. In the case of Uganda v. Mathew Kanyamunyu, the introduction of aspects of customary reconciliation and being mentioned to the court can be perceived as a factor of bringing emotions to court.
Several complainants in a number of cases have decided to bring a line of children, all in the name of building an emotional case. Be that as it may, various scholars believe that judges make judgments based on emotions in court and what always transpires. This proves why litigants carry children to court, pregnant mothers, and even others burst into tears just to win the sympathy of the judges.
We cannot, however, do away with the fact that those problems that consequently emerge in the criminal justice systemmany of them are due to the return of emotion in issues that the actors in the criminal sector ought to base on the law and facts, the whole idea of de facto and de jure.
Exceptions aside, emotional processes have failed to occupy a central position in criminological thought, in spite of the fact that they are intrinsically related to issues of crime and criminal justice. As Suzanne Karstedt forcefully argues, emotions pervade penal law and the criminal justice system.
The whole concept of emotions is wide. Arguments have been drawn that in most circumstances, people hide emotions, and some cannot be read during trial. According to Susanne Karstedt in the journal article Emotions and Criminal Justice by U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Theoretical Criminology Volume: 6 Issue: 3 Dated: August 2002 Pages 299-317, it was put forward that the quest for authentic emotions and the fact that they are invisible contradict each other, and people will hide many if not most of them. Contemporary emotion theory does not conceptualize emotions as unitary, elementary entities but as multi-componential phenomena.
This perspective is based on the notion that human beings have a universal emotional potential, but that this is realized in actual emotional practices and in concrete social and cultural settings. The recent discourse about law and emotions has been dominated by three emotionsdisgust, anger, and shame.
There is a strong consensus that emotions could and should be used in the legal sphere and in lawmaking more than in the past. Anger is the emotion most clearly linked to concerns and values about justice and fair treatment. Shame, remorse, and guilt are emotions most closely linked to the criminal justice system and the community it represents.
Legal institutions are not based on a small number of basic emotions but on different and contradictory ones.The question of the day that will arise is: How best are we going to deal with the emotions, attachments, and tensions that arise from the emotionalization of criminal justice in Uganda? Do we need to create emotionally intelligent justice systems?
Because emotions also call for public outcry where the public exerts pressure on justice systems, the police, and the judiciary.
We have seen cases such as the convict in the murder of the late Nagirinya and the recent murder of the late Ndiga clan head, whose suspect openly said he murdered the deceased with no remorse; this means such sentiments and statements bias the bench and call for applying emotions during adjudicating such matters. Does this mean the judges won’t look at the evidence available to convict the accused based on the confessions made according to the right procedures of the law? And if so, can there be conspiracy or other aides the victim is trying to hide if available evidence is not looked at with a lot of gingerly?
In conclusion, emotions by no means influence trial right from the first hearing to sentencing. Judges will take keen note of the accused person right from the time he or she takes plea up to the sentencing time when he or she makes his last statements. I submit that emotions should be avoided in the criminal justice system by all means, as they bring in passions and take away rational decision-making, a core aspect of reason in the law, where sentencing is based on facts and the law only.
