Individualized justice requires consideration of a defendant's unique traits and circumstances to determine what that individual did or thought, not just what the individual should have done or thought. However, our justice system and common misconceptions and prejudices often lead to trials based on assumptions of what most people would do. Expert testimony as to the kind of person a defendant is represents a way to move judges and juries back toward an individualized assessment of the particular defendant before them. This testimony focuses on part on a defendant's history, on special traits and their consequences, and on the interaction between those traits and situational factors, thereby offering juries the possibility of thinking of defendants as special human beings rather than as stereotypes. Although the clinical judgment often required in such testimony can be of uncertain accuracy, such testimony increases individual and public respect for the justice system as a result of admitting evidence that enhances the prospect of individualizing justice. The approach that judges should use on this subject should emphasize the value of persuading and cajoling jurors, rather than commanding them to do what is right. Footnotes