Confronting Cognitive “Anchoring Effect" and “Blind Spot” Biases In Federal Sentencing: a Modest Solution For Reforming a Fundamental Flaw
Year: 2014
Type: article
Abstract: in the Northern District of Iowa, having sentenced more than 4,000 defendants, spanning four districts and two circuits, and is an even longer term adjunct professor at the Drake University School of Law.The author is extremely grateful to Sarah French Russell for her insightful review of, and immensely helpful suggestions for, the earlier draft of this Article. MARK W. BENNETT [Vol.widespread dissatisfaction among federal district court judges with the Guidelines and the length of sentences.This Article argues that this is because judges' sentences are subconsciously anchored by the calculated Guidelines range.This Article offers a simple, modest, and practical solution that requires no change in existing law by the Supreme Court or Congress.It simply requires rearranging the numerical anchoring information in the presentence report and adding additional relevant numerical information to counteract the anchoring effect of the Guidelines.If federal district court judges are educated about the effect of cognitive anchoring and their own bias-based blind spots to it-their improved awareness can only enhance the fairness of sentencing.
Source: eYLS (Yale Law School)
Author: Mark W. Bennett
Language: English
Subfield: General Decision Sciences
Field: Decision Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W1952158394