Week 2

What do you get when you put two people in two different courts where they write down 342 decisions by 57 benches? 

Apart from a lot of paper work you might find out that the matching heuristic is a better predictor for judicial decisions than a more complex model. Dhami (2003) conducted the above-mentioned study. This study found out that the matching heuristic was a better predictor that franklins rule. 

This result might come as a surprise because franklins rule examines more cues in a decision and assigns them certain weights, as explained in my first week blog. The matching heuristic, however, searches only through a small subset of cues and bases a decision on one cue alone. 

Why, however, does this result occur? Judges are presented with a heavy caseload and are usually working under time pressure. Therefore many judges rely on the decision made by the police, previous benches, and prosecutors, and maybe unintentionally “passing the buck”. Judges also make decision as a bench and this involves shared responsibilities, which use fewer cues. 

In the end there is only one question remaining: How do they know that the right decision is the right decision?