Skip to main content
LIRA@BC Law

Abstract

The “anchoring effect” is a cognitive bias by which people evaluate numbers by focusing on a reference point—an anchor—and adjusting up or down. Unfortunately, people usually do not sufficiently adjust away from their anchors, so the initial choice of anchors has an inordinate effect on their final estimates. More than ninety percent of all criminal cases are resolved by plea bargains. In the vast majority of those cases, the prosecutor makes the initial plea offer, and prosecutors often make high initial offers. Assuming that the prosecutor’s opening offer operates as an anchor, nearly all criminal case in this country produce unjust results based upon an unconscious cognitive bias. This Article proposes a solution that most jurisdictions have rejected: Judges should be able to participate in the plea discussions. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1) and most state counterparts strictly preclude judges from participating in plea discussions, but a few jurisdictions permit judicial participation. In these jurisdictions, plea discussions commence with the prosecution and defense laying out their cases and asking for particular dispositions and the judge responding with the expected post-plea sentence. This Article contends that this type of judicial participation would reduce the anchoring effect.

Files

File nameDate UploadedVisibilityFile size
04_miller_A1b.pdf
8 Sep 2022
Public
621 kB

Metrics

Metadata

  • Subject
    • Criminal Law

    • Criminal Procedure

    • Dispute Resolution and Arbitration

    • Judges

  • Journal title
    • Boston College Law Review

  • Volume
    • 54

  • Issue
    • 4

  • Pagination
    • 1667

  • Date submitted

    8 September 2022