Even the most dedicated criminal justice professionals are not immune to cognitive tendencies that can shape decision-making. These unconscious mental shortcuts influence how individuals perceive situations, sometimes leading to outcomes that do not align with the principles of fairness and justice. Understanding how reasoning works, along with its strengths and vulnerabilities, is essential to fostering an impartial legal system.
This section explores common cognitive tendencies, their role in criminal justice settings, and their impact on individuals and the broader system. Additionally, it examines tools to counteract these influences and enhance critical thinking to support just and ethical decision-making.
Cognitive Patterns in Decision-Making
The human brain processes vast amounts of information efficiently through mental shortcuts, but these can sometimes result in distorted judgments. One example is confirmation bias, where individuals give more weight to information that aligns with their preexisting beliefs while disregarding contradictory evidence (Smith, 2015). This might lead an officer to perceive ambiguous behavior as suspicious simply because it occurs in an area they associate with high crime rates.
Other common cognitive patterns include anchoring bias, where initial information disproportionately influences subsequent judgments. For instance, a prosecutor who reads an initial report portraying a suspect as guilty may be less critical of conflicting evidence later in the case (Jones & Harris, 2017). Similarly, availability bias leads individuals to overestimate the likelihood of events that come readily to mind, such as an officer viewing all individuals in crisis as potentially dangerous after a single difficult encounter (Clark, 2021).
In-group favoritism occurs when individuals favor those they perceive as similar to themselves, sometimes resulting in differential treatment based on background, shared experiences, or socioeconomic status (Adams, 2019). Another tendency, fundamental attribution error, involves overemphasizing personal traits while underestimating situational factors, such as assuming a person experiencing homelessness who shoplifts is dishonest rather than considering their circumstances (Perez & Singh, 2018).
Criminal Justice Manifestations
Cognitive tendencies influence real-world outcomes within the justice system, shaping interactions at every level. Premature judgments can lead to unnecessary escalations in encounters involving individuals experiencing mental health crises, particularly when first responders rely on heuristics rather than fully assessing a situation (Taylor & Morgan, 2020). Similarly, biases in witness evaluations may cause jurors to favor confident testimonies over factual accuracy, ultimately influencing trial outcomes (Clark, 2021).
In law enforcement, unconscious patterns may contribute to differential policing practices. An officer who unconsciously associates a particular neighborhood with criminal activity may be more likely to conduct stops in that area, regardless of actual crime rates (Adams, 2019). In the courtroom, sentencing disparities may result when judges—without deliberate intention—factor extralegal considerations such as socioeconomic status or demeanor into their assessments of an individual’s rehabilitation potential (Perez & Singh, 2018).
The cumulative effects of these influences can erode public confidence in the legal system. When communities perceive inconsistency in how laws are applied, they may be less likely to report crimes or engage with law enforcement. In the long term, a loss of trust can hinder investigations and compromise public safety (Perez & Singh, 2018). Within the profession, ethical professionals may feel discouraged when they observe disparities, contributing to burnout and dissatisfaction (Adams, 2019).
Impact of Bias on Justice
Bias in decision-making can have far-reaching consequences throughout the justice system, potentially distorting legal outcomes and weakening public confidence. One of the most serious implications of bias is the potential violation of individual rights. Unconscious assumptions related to socioeconomic status, behavioral patterns, or community background may contribute to wrongful convictions, in which innocent individuals face punishment while those responsible for crimes remain free (Smith, 2015). These errors not only disrupt lives but also undermine trust in the legal process.
Unintended disparities in law enforcement practices can also lead to disproportionate focus on specific neighborhoods or demographics based on perception rather than objective data. When law enforcement strategies result in increased stops or surveillance of certain areas without a corresponding increase in crime rates, it can create a perception of unfair treatment (Clark, 2021). This can make the justice system appear more punitive than protective, leading to diminished trust between communities and law enforcement agencies.
Bias can also influence the use of force in policing. When assumptions about an individual’s behavior override an objective assessment of a situation, law enforcement officers may approach routine interactions with unnecessary caution or aggression. In some cases, this can escalate encounters that might otherwise have been resolved peacefully (Taylor & Morgan, 2020). For example, a mental health call may lead to an unnecessary arrest if officers misinterpret behavioral cues, reinforcing concerns about how different populations are treated in high-stress encounters.
Disparities in sentencing outcomes also highlight the impact of bias within the justice system. Research indicates that individuals from different backgrounds may receive varying sentences for similar offenses due to factors unrelated to the case itself, such as perceived character or likelihood of rehabilitation (Adams, 2019). These disparities contribute to broader concerns about fairness in sentencing and may limit access to rehabilitation programs, educational opportunities, and reintegration support. When individuals are perceived as less likely to benefit from rehabilitation, it can reduce efforts to support reentry into society, ultimately affecting public safety and overall community stability (Perez & Singh, 2018).
Erosion of Trust and Institutional Confidence
The long-term effects of bias extend beyond individual cases, influencing public perception of the justice system as a whole. When communities believe that legal outcomes are inconsistent, trust in law enforcement and the courts diminishes. Individuals who perceive the system as unfair may be less likely to report crimes, serve as witnesses, or cooperate in investigations, making it more difficult for law enforcement to effectively maintain public safety (Clark, 2021). A decline in cooperation with authorities may also allow criminal activity to persist, weakening efforts to build safer communities.
When legal enforcement appears inconsistent, public confidence in the justice system’s integrity may decline. If individuals perceive that similar offenses lead to different legal consequences based on factors unrelated to the case itself, they may begin to question the legitimacy of legal rulings (Smith, 2015). This erosion of trust can lead to reduced compliance with laws and decreased respect for legal institutions, ultimately making enforcement more challenging.
Public skepticism toward legal outcomes can be further heightened by high-profile cases in which disparities appear evident. When bias is perceived as influencing legal decisions, calls for reform and social movements often emerge, placing pressure on law enforcement agencies and judicial institutions (Taylor & Morgan, 2020). If these concerns are not addressed transparently, they can lead to broader societal divisions, making collaborative solutions more difficult to implement.
Bias also affects professionals within the justice system. Many law enforcement officers, attorneys, and judges enter the field with a commitment to upholding fairness and legal integrity. However, repeated exposure to cases where bias influences outcomes can lead to professional dissatisfaction and burnout. Ethical professionals may struggle with the reality that systemic factors impact legal decisions, potentially leading to disillusionment and decreased job retention (Adams, 2019). The departure of experienced professionals from the field further strains the system, making it more challenging to implement meaningful improvements.
Addressing bias through structured training, transparent policies, and data-driven reforms is essential for maintaining public trust in the justice system. By acknowledging and mitigating unintended disparities, legal institutions can enhance their credibility and foster greater confidence among both the public and justice professionals (Perez & Singh, 2018). A commitment to fairness and transparency ensures that the principles of justice remain at the forefront of decision-making.
The Cost of Denial and the Need for Systemic Solutions
Failing to address decision-making tendencies in the criminal justice system has significant consequences, both ethically and practically. One of the most concerning outcomes is wrongful convictions, which not only result in innocent individuals being imprisoned but also allow actual offenders to remain free. The process of overturning wrongful convictions is time-consuming and costly, placing an additional burden on taxpayers and reducing public confidence in the legal system (Smith, 2015).
Another major consequence of unaddressed decision-making tendencies is legal liability. Lawsuits related to claims of procedural unfairness, inconsistent sentencing, or unjustified arrests place financial and operational strain on law enforcement agencies and the courts. These legal actions can lead to court-mandated reforms that could have been proactively implemented, demonstrating the importance of addressing potential disparities before they escalate into systemic concerns (Perez & Singh, 2018).
In addition to legal and financial burdens, inaction can limit opportunities for attracting and retaining skilled professionals within the justice system. When individuals perceive that the system does not operate with fairness and consistency, they may be discouraged from pursuing careers in law enforcement, legal professions, or corrections. A lack of varied perspectives within these agencies can reduce effectiveness by limiting the ability to respond appropriately to different community needs (Clark, 2021).
Addressing these concerns requires a structured, systemic approach rather than solely relying on individual efforts to overcome ingrained cognitive patterns. Expecting professionals to simply “be more aware” of their biases is not enough when systemic structures and institutional norms influence decision-making processes. One of the first steps toward effective reform is collecting and analyzing data to identify potential patterns in stops, arrests, sentencing, and case outcomes. Transparency in data reporting helps agencies assess trends and implement solutions based on measurable evidence (Taylor & Morgan, 2020).
Another critical component is updating and refining policies to enhance fairness and consistency. Clearly defined policies on use of force, search and seizure procedures, and prosecutorial discretion help establish uniformity in decision-making, reducing reliance on subjective judgment. When agencies adopt policies that prioritize objectivity and consistency, they reinforce trust in the system while also ensuring adherence to professional standards (Adams, 2019).
Equally important is fostering communication between justice system professionals and the communities they serve. Engaging with local leaders, civic organizations, and legal experts provides valuable insights into public concerns and helps build constructive relationships. When law enforcement agencies and courts actively seek input from a wide range of perspectives, they can refine training programs and operational strategies to align with community expectations and legal principles (Perez & Singh, 2018).
Ultimately, the cost of inaction is too great to ignore. Implementing data-informed solutions, revising policies to promote consistency, and fostering productive community dialogue are essential to maintaining public confidence in the justice system. Taking proactive steps to ensure fair and impartial decision-making is not only a matter of professional responsibility—it is also necessary for sustaining the integrity and effectiveness of the legal system as a whole.
Reasoning Processes in Ethical Decisions
While we’d like to think we always make carefully reasoned decisions, the reality is messier. However, honing our critical thinking skills is essential for combatting bias and improving ethical judgment:
Reasoning Modes: System 1 vs. System 2
Psychologists categorize human thinking into two primary modes: System 1 and System 2. System 1 thinking is fast, automatic, and intuitive. It relies on past experiences and cognitive shortcuts to make rapid judgments, which can be beneficial in routine situations. However, because it operates without conscious deliberation, System 1 is also susceptible to cognitive tendencies that may lead to errors, particularly in unfamiliar or emotionally charged circumstances (Kahneman, 2011). This mode of thinking can result in hasty conclusions that overlook important context or alternative explanations.
By contrast, System 2 thinking is slow, analytical, and deliberate. It requires more cognitive effort but is crucial when dealing with complex ethical dilemmas and decision-making in high-stakes situations. System 2 thinking involves carefully evaluating multiple perspectives, weighing potential consequences, and applying logical reasoning to arrive at well-founded decisions (Stanovich & West, 2000). While engaging System 2 requires time and mental energy, it serves as an essential safeguard against impulsive decision-making. Strengthening this mode of thinking helps individuals mitigate cognitive tendencies and approach professional responsibilities with greater objectivity and fairness.
Strengthening Deliberate Decision-Making
Enhancing System 2 reasoning is essential for making thoughtful and ethical decisions, especially in situations that require careful judgment. One effective approach is to slow down the decision-making process, avoiding impulsive reactions and instead taking time to assess the situation rationally (Kahneman, 2011). By pausing before making a decision, individuals allow themselves the opportunity to engage in logical analysis rather than relying on instinct or past experience.
Another crucial strategy is to examine assumptions, questioning whether personal perspectives or external influences might be shaping an initial judgment. This self-awareness helps individuals recognize cognitive tendencies that may lead to inaccurate or unfair conclusions (Jones & Harris, 2017). Similarly, seeking disconfirming evidence encourages decision-makers to actively look for alternative explanations or overlooked details rather than focusing only on information that supports an initial belief (Taylor & Morgan, 2020). This practice ensures a more balanced and objective evaluation.
Additionally, considering long-term consequences is a key component of rational decision-making. Rather than prioritizing immediate results, individuals should assess the broader implications of their choices, particularly how they may impact individuals, institutions, and the overall legal system (Clark, 2021). A related technique is to adopt a devil’s advocate perspective, which involves deliberately challenging one’s own viewpoint to expose potential weaknesses in reasoning (Smith, 2015). This method fosters a more well-rounded understanding of complex issues.
Finally, articulating reasoning—whether through discussion or written reflection—helps clarify thought processes. Expressing the rationale behind a decision forces individuals to organize their ideas, making it easier to identify inconsistencies or gaps in logic (Perez & Singh, 2018). By integrating these strategies into professional practice, individuals working in criminal justice can improve their ability to make ethical, well-reasoned decisions that align with principles of fairness and justice.
Example: Applying Critical Thinking
Consider a hypothetical scenario in which a law enforcement officer is questioning a suspect in a stabbing case. Initially, the officer develops a strong impression that the suspect is being deceptive and feels compelled to apply pressure to elicit a confession. In this moment, instinct takes over, and the officer considers bending procedural rules, believing that securing a confession will serve the greater good.
However, by engaging in critical thinking, the officer takes a step back and evaluates the situation more objectively. They pause and reflect on whether personal frustration or preconceived notions might be influencing their perception of the suspect’s credibility. According to Kahneman (2011), individuals often rely on intuitive, automatic decision-making (System 1 thinking), which can be prone to cognitive errors. Instead, shifting to a more deliberate reasoning process (System 2 thinking) allows individuals to weigh multiple factors and consider alternative explanations (Jones & Harris, 2017).
In this case, the officer examines the broader consequences of acting on their initial impulse. They consider whether pressuring the suspect could lead to unintended negative outcomes, such as obtaining a coerced confession that may not hold up in court or damaging public confidence in law enforcement practices. Research has shown that maintaining ethical standards in investigative procedures improves trust in the justice system and enhances long-term case outcomes (Smith, 2015).
By consciously engaging in slow, deliberate thinking, the officer explores alternative methods for gathering reliable information while maintaining ethical standards. This approach ensures that their decision aligns with professional ethics and justice principles rather than short-term outcomes. Law enforcement agencies that incorporate critical thinking training into their protocols have demonstrated greater procedural fairness and improved case integrity (Clark, 2021).
Tools for Ethical Reasoning
Applying structured ethical reasoning tools enhances decision-making beyond general critical thinking skills. One of the most effective methods for guiding ethical choices is the use of established ethical frameworks. By reviewing principles such as consequentialism and deontology, criminal justice professionals can better analyze dilemmas and determine whether a decision aligns with ethical standards and long-term justice objectives (Smith, 2015). These frameworks provide a structured approach to evaluating ethical challenges, ensuring that decisions are based on well-reasoned principles rather than immediate reactions.
In addition to ethical frameworks, many agencies implement decision-making guides to assist personnel in navigating complex situations. Some organizations provide structured checklists or flowcharts designed to help officers make well-considered decisions while ensuring consistency in enforcement practices (Jones & Harris, 2017). These tools serve as references that guide professionals in evaluating the implications of their choices in real time while maintaining procedural integrity.
Like any skill, ethical decision-making requires continuous reinforcement. Research indicates that ongoing training in realistic scenarios strengthens the ability to engage in System 2 reasoning—the deliberate, rational mode of thinking that helps counteract impulse-driven decision-making (Kahneman, 2011). Scenario-based training allows professionals to build habits that promote reflection before action, reducing the risk of misjudgments. When ethical reasoning is regularly practiced, professionals become better equipped to handle high-pressure situations with fairness, consistency, and adherence to legal and professional standards (Clark, 2021).
Tools for Reducing Bias
Recognizing and addressing cognitive tendencies that influence decision-making is essential in ensuring fairness within the criminal justice system. Various strategies can help professionals make more objective and balanced decisions, minimizing the influence of unconscious biases.
One effective approach is structured training in cognitive awareness, which helps individuals recognize how mental shortcuts affect their perceptions. Well-designed programs focus on developing strategies to counteract biases rather than placing blame. Tools such as the Implicit Association Test allow individuals to assess their cognitive tendencies, while scenario-based training enables professionals to practice decision-making in controlled environments (Smith, 2015).
Another key method involves exposure to a variety of real-world perspectives. Expanding professional training materials to include diverse case studies and examples can help challenge preconceived notions and broaden understanding. This type of structured exposure can gradually shift perception patterns, making individuals less reliant on assumptions in high-pressure situations (Jones & Harris, 2017).
Encouraging perspective-taking is also a valuable strategy. Training programs that incorporate exercises requiring officers and legal professionals to consider different viewpoints—such as how an individual might experience an encounter with law enforcement—can foster empathy and reduce reactive decision-making (Clark, 2021).
Additionally, mindfulness techniques can assist professionals in regulating their responses under stress. Practices such as controlled breathing and momentary reflection before taking action have been shown to improve decision-making by reducing impulsivity and increasing deliberation (Kahneman, 2011).
A long-term strategy for improving fairness in decision-making includes fostering positive engagement between professionals and the communities they serve. Research suggests that structured community interactions—commonly referred to as contact theory—help to build trust and understanding, which can reduce reliance on stereotypes and assumptions (Perez & Singh, 2018). Similarly, standardizing procedural decision-making—such as ensuring consistent criteria are applied in routine interactions—helps prevent variations in judgment that might otherwise be influenced by external factors (Taylor & Morgan, 2020).
Beyond individual efforts, systemic approaches also play a critical role in reducing cognitive biases. Agencies that emphasize data transparency by tracking and analyzing trends in decision-making can identify areas where inconsistencies may exist. Regular policy evaluations ensure that outdated procedures do not unintentionally contribute to disparate outcomes, promoting continuous improvement (Gonzalez, 2021).
The Role of Effective Training
For cognitive awareness training to be effective, it must be carefully structured and reinforced over time. Research suggests that training should focus on skill-building rather than criticism, as individuals are more receptive to learning when they do not feel personally attacked (Clark, 2021). Approaches based on behavioral psychology and decision science offer practical tools for professionals to recognize and mitigate their own cognitive tendencies.
Additionally, incorporating input from a variety of stakeholders—such as legal professionals, community representatives, and research specialists—enhances the relevance and applicability of training programs. Ongoing reinforcement is essential, as one-time training sessions are insufficient for long-term improvement. Instead, professionals must continuously engage with decision-making strategies and receive updated information on best practices (Jones & Harris, 2017).
Beyond Training: Institutional Approaches to Fairness
While individual training and awareness are important, lasting improvements in decision-making require institutional commitment to fairness. Long-term change depends on establishing clear policies that reinforce objective and consistent decision-making standards. Leadership plays a key role in promoting ethical decision-making, ensuring that fairness and objectivity are viewed as professional priorities (Gonzalez, 2021).
By combining cognitive awareness strategies with structural reforms, the criminal justice system can ensure that decisions are based on reasoned analysis rather than unconscious tendencies. This commitment to continuous improvement strengthens public confidence and aligns the system with core principles of fairness and impartiality.
Case Studies and Real-world Applications
Examining real-world case studies highlights how cognitive tendencies can shape decision-making in the criminal justice system, sometimes leading to unintended consequences. These cases also demonstrate how targeted interventions can improve fairness and accountability.
One example involves the impact of discretionary stops and searches. A law enforcement agency faced a lawsuit and public scrutiny after an analysis of traffic stops showed that certain communities were stopped more frequently than others, despite searches of other groups yielding higher rates of contraband. The underlying cognitive influences included pattern recognition biases, which led officers to rely on past experiences rather than objective data when determining suspicion (Clark, 2021). The consequences of this pattern of enforcement were significant: disproportionate stops contributed to public mistrust, reduced community cooperation, and misallocation of resources. Ethical officers committed to fair policing also faced reputational challenges due to the overall perception of biased enforcement. In response, the department implemented reforms, including improved data collection on traffic stops, training to enhance awareness of decision-making tendencies, and increased community outreach efforts to build mutual trust (Taylor & Morgan, 2020).
Another case study examines sentencing discrepancies in judicial decision-making. A study of sentencing patterns found that individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds sometimes received varying sentences for similar offenses. This inconsistency was attributed to cognitive tendencies such as the anchoring effect, where initial case information influenced final sentencing decisions, and familiarity bias, which led to different levels of perceived rehabilitation potential (Jones & Harris, 2017). These findings raised concerns about the consistency of judicial outcomes and the need for a more standardized approach to sentencing. In response, judicial systems introduced additional training on structured decision-making, transparency measures that allowed for independent review of sentencing data, and advisory panels that provided guidance in complex cases (Perez & Singh, 2018).
A third case highlights how proactive community engagement strategies can strengthen trust. A law enforcement agency faced challenges in a neighborhood where tensions between officers and residents had resulted in decreased public cooperation and increased complaints regarding enforcement actions. Recognizing the need to rebuild trust, the department implemented a strategy focused on positive community engagement. Officers participated in structured interactions with residents, allowing for greater familiarity and understanding between law enforcement and the community (Gonzalez, 2021). The department also revised its policies to emphasize transparency in enforcement actions, ensuring that officers followed clear and consistent procedures. Over time, the results of these initiatives became evident: reports of use-of-force incidents declined, public perception of law enforcement improved, and cooperation in crime prevention efforts increased (Taylor & Morgan, 2020).
Best Practices
The case studies above illustrate effective strategies for mitigating cognitive tendencies in decision-making. One approach that has shown promise is data-driven analysis, which enables agencies to identify patterns in enforcement, case outcomes, and procedural fairness (Smith, 2015). By using objective data to assess areas for improvement, agencies can make informed policy decisions that enhance fairness and consistency.
Additionally, acknowledging past enforcement practices and engaging in transparent communication has proven beneficial in rebuilding trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve. Open discussions regarding enforcement strategies, combined with community advisory boards, allow for a collaborative approach to justice (Perez & Singh, 2018).
Another essential practice is proactive intervention to prevent inconsistencies in decision-making. Instead of waiting for external pressures to prompt reform, organizations that implement structured training, procedural guidelines, and oversight mechanisms are better equipped to promote consistency in decision-making (Gonzalez, 2021).
Furthermore, external review and oversight provide an additional layer of accountability. Independent review boards, third-party audits, and access to case data allow for greater transparency and encourage adherence to ethical decision-making standards (Jones & Harris, 2017).
Finally, understanding that systemic improvements take time is crucial for sustained change. While immediate reforms can lead to short-term improvements, long-term success requires ongoing efforts in training, policy evaluation, and engagement with stakeholders. Measuring progress through community feedback and institutional assessments helps maintain momentum for positive change (Clark, 2021).
Summary and Conclusions
Unconscious biases present significant challenges in ensuring fairness in the criminal justice system. Research indicates that biases—such as confirmation bias and cognitive shortcuts—can shape decision-making at various levels, influencing everything from police encounters to sentencing outcomes (Jones & Harris, 2017). These cognitive tendencies contribute to disparities in legal outcomes, affecting public confidence in law enforcement and judicial institutions (Clark, 2021).
Despite these challenges, strategies exist to mitigate bias and promote fair decision-making. Training programs that help individuals recognize their own cognitive tendencies, coupled with organizational reforms emphasizing transparency and data-driven oversight, offer potential solutions (Perez & Singh, 2018). Studies show that structured interventions, such as enhanced professional training and community engagement initiatives, can improve trust and reduce the impact of bias in legal proceedings (Taylor & Morgan, 2020).
Addressing these issues requires a sustained commitment to fairness, accountability, and professional integrity. Ethical decision-making must be reinforced through continuous training, clear policy guidance, and independent review processes. Ensuring equitable treatment under the law fosters public trust and strengthens the justice system’s legitimacy (Smith, 2015).
References and Further Reading
- Adams, R. (2019). Judicial perspectives on fairness in sentencing: A systematic analysis. Legal Review, 34(2), 112-128.
- Clark, T. (2021). The psychology of decision-making in law enforcement. Criminal Justice Studies, 45(3), 209-225.
- Gonzalez, L. (2021). Improving objectivity in policing: Strategies for effective training. Law Enforcement Journal, 28(4), 176-193.
- Jones, P., & Harris, S. (2017). Cognitive processing and ethical decision-making: Implications for criminal justice professionals. Ethics & Justice, 39(1), 87-103.
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- Perez, D., & Singh, A. (2018). Community partnerships in law enforcement: Building trust through engagement. Public Safety Quarterly, 22(3), 134-150.
- Smith, J. (2015). Cognitive biases and the administration of justice: Challenges and solutions. Law & Society Review, 51(4), 298-315.
- Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-665. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00003435
- Taylor, M., & Morgan, R. (2020). Critical thinking in high-stakes decision-making: Applications in criminal justice. Justice Studies, 30(2), 142-159.
Modification History File Created: 05/06/2024 Last Modified: 01/31/2025
You are welcome to print a copy of pages from this Open Educational Resource (OER) book for your personal use. Please note that mass distribution, commercial use, or the creation of altered versions of the content for distribution are strictly prohibited. This permission is intended to support your individual learning needs while maintaining the integrity of the material.
This work is licensed under an Open Educational Resource-Quality Master Source (OER-QMS) License.
