It's not as if the judge does not have all the details of the case prior to sentencing. The order can't possibly supply more information than the fact that he just sat through the trial himself days or weeks prior. At least in the United States, the same judge who presides over a trial is the one who sentences the convicted. The only time a defendant gets different judges for anything is early in the process, like during arraignment.
Knowing the details and being subconsciously influenced are different questions. Ambient music in stores doesn’t change the prices, products, or a shoppers needs yet it still influences buying behavior.
Suppose a taste tester is asked to rank something on a scale of 1-100, but before giving a number they need to presort them into terrible, ok, good, great then go back to each group and give a specific score to each item. My guess is there would be different clustering vs someone doing the same task in one go.
Adding to this, even knowing the subconscious biases doesn't necessarily mitigate them. Kahneman talked about how he was still subjected to such biases, even though he was an expert in studying and identifying them.
What ‘subconscious influence’ are you assuming here?
The cases are ordered in a known, public, obvious way by known, public, obvious criteria. Are you thinking that a judge would not know the difference between the severity of charges if they weren’t grouped together? That he would be inclined to think a jaywalking case sandwiched between two murders was just as serious? This argument seems unlikely in the extreme.
I’m suggesting the exact opposite situation, ie groups of equal severity create a subconscious bias even if it’s the Judge that makes them.
A jaywalking case seems meaningless when sandwiched between just about anything because objectively it’s not serious. However 20 murder cases and you might start benchmarking things to the pedo cannibal not each case on it’s own merits.
If all you see is 20 white collar crimes row with several 10+ million dollar cases someone who ‘only’ stole 100 thousand seems almost meaningless even if objectively it’s a lot of money. And that exact loss of objectivity is a problem.
> What you are describing bears no relationship to the study or… any real case that we’re discussing.
Study says before lunch cases are meaningfully different than the after lunch case, thus it’s a like with like grouping.
I referenced a known effect where grouping like with like can create a subconscious bias. Sure it’s best known in other contexts, but there’s little to suggest sentencing is somehow uniquely unbiased.
