Would a group be better or worse than an individual
decision-maker? Anchoring effects would be one problem,
but would there be amplification of bias?
Smith's experience drawing up sentencing grids: each
participant finds a thing or two that's undervalued,
and bumps it up a notch or two.
There's a disconnect between sentencing hypothetical
offenders and real ones.
Prosecution speaks first: that's an anchoring effect.
Does law matter? The first decision is supposed to be
probation. Then maybe extended supervision. If
you were to start your decision with the conditions
you want for extended supervision, and then later
consider the first part of the bifurcated sentence,
you'd have quite a different approach to the time
decision.
You can't make rules that turn a bad judge into a good
judge, but can you give a framework for good judges
to use? That's what Gallion is trying to do.
Judges might make a decision, and then fill out the
worksheet...
The upshot of the psychology article: judges don't know why
they make the sentencing decisions that they do. Does
that mean that requiring explanation is bad? That
depends on what we want to use the explanation for.
Maybe we are just trying to instill a habit.
The judge in Gallion, by the way, went on to give
lectures on sentencing. Because the supreme court
did not reverse the sentence in Gallion, the
opinion isn't taken seriously.
20 pp. paper. Can be anything, including fiction.
Sentencing is different from corrections, by the way.