Relative Judgments

Abstract

The paper presents a theory of relative judgments, suggesting judges are evaluating individual cases based on how those cases are ranked in comparison to the other cases in their caseloads. Consequently, judges view a case more severely when caseloads contain milder cases and more leniently when caseloads contain graver cases. The paper develops a novel empirical identification strategy that exploits the properties of caseloads 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 on different ends of the caseloads distribution, and demonstrate the existence of relative judgments 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 to depart above the sentencing guidelines recommendations, than judges exposed to higher levels of criminal gravity.

Keywords: Judicial behavior, judicial decision-making, sentencing, bias, contrast effect, caseload effect, relative judgment, behavioral law and economics, empirical