Relative Judgments

Adi Leibovitch

The Journal of Legal Studies, 2016, vol. 45, issue 2, 281 - 330

Abstract: This paper presents a theory of relative judgments, suggesting that judges evaluate individual cases on the basis of how those cases are ranked in comparison to the other cases in their caseloads. Consequently, judges view a case more severely when their caseloads contain milder cases and more leniently when their caseloads contain graver cases. The paper develops a novel empirical identification strategy that exploits the properties of caseload distribution under random assignment of cases as a source of exogenous variation in judicial exposure to gravity. Using sentencing data, I construct a matched sample of judges randomly located at different ends of the caseloads distribution and demonstrate the existence of relative-judgment bias in their decisions. Judges exposed to lower levels of criminal gravity order longer sentences and are more likely to use the aggravated sentencing guidelines range or depart above the sentencing guidelines recommendations than judges exposed to higher levels of criminal gravity.

Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/687376 (application/pdf)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/687376 (text/html)
Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/687376

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The Journal of Legal Studies from University of Chicago Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Journals Division ().