Does Unconscious Bias Affect Trial Judges?

Prosecutorial decisions play an important, and sometimes a decisive, role in a defendant’s ultimate sentence. They begin with the selection of charges and may end with a recommendation on clemency or expungement of a criminal conviction. The influence of prosecutors over the sentence, therefore, is far more extensive than that of any other official. The charging decision sets the starting point for the sentence range. The prosecution tends to control entry into diversion programs that may spare an offender a criminal record after complying with a set of requirements. Plea bargains, which have become more frequent even in Europe’s civil law countries, usually focus on the type and scope of the criminal justice sentence. Mandatory minimum sentences, mandatory aggravators, and stacked charges provide prosecutors with overwhelming bargaining power, causing many defendants to waive their right to a trial. Judges tend to follow the parties’ agreements and impose the recommended sentence. In many states prosecutors routinely weigh in on parole decisions and determine whether to proceed against defendants for supervision violations. Even in clemency decisions, they frequently submit a recommendation.

Download Full-text

Apophenia, unconscious bias and reflexivity in nursing qualitative research

International Journal of Nursing Studies ◽

10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.09.013 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 89 ◽

pp. 8-13 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Stephen Buetow

Keyword(s):

Qualitative Research ◽

Unconscious Bias

Download Full-text

Unconscious BIAS: we are more biased than we think!

Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare ◽

10.17267/2675-021xevidence.v1i1.2262 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

pp. 40

Author(s):

Marcia Maria Noya-Rabelo

Keyword(s):

Unconscious Bias

Download Full-text

Disclosure and Production in Sexual Violence Cases: Situating Stinchcombe

Alberta Law Review ◽

10.29173/alr1359 ◽

1969 ◽

pp. 655

Author(s):

Jennifer Koshan

Keyword(s):

Sexual Violence ◽

Violence Against Women ◽

Supreme Court Of Canada ◽

Appellate Courts ◽

Judicial Decisions ◽

Trial Judges ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

History Of ◽

Exercise Of Discretion ◽

Case Basis

This article examines the issue of disclosure and the legacy of Stinchcombe through a review of the history of disclosure and production in criminal sexual assault proceedings and an analysis of judicial decisions and legislative enactments in this context. The author presents a feminist analysis of the tension between those representing the rights of accused persons who seek to access a complainant's personal records and the voices of equality-seeking and anti-violence groups that challenge stereotypes about sexual violence against women. The author presents a comprehensive review of the louver court decisions in production applications since the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Mills. The author concludes that while Bill C-46 and Mills are positive developments, a great deal of discretion is left to trial judges to decide on the merits of production on a case-by-case basis, and such decisions are granted much deference by appellate courts. The exercise of discretion may encourage the application of stereotypes about women and sexual violence and is the reason an absolute ban on production is preferred by women's and anti- violence groups.

Download Full-text