Anchoring Effect of the Prosecutor's Demand on Sentence: Evidence from Korean Sexual Crime Cases

Kim, Jung Wook; Chae, Su Bok Article Anchoring Effect of the Prosecutor's Demand on Sentence: Evidence from Korean Sexual Crime Cases KDI Journal of Economic Policy Provided in Cooperation with: Korea Development Institute (KDI), Sejong Suggested Citation: Kim, Jung Wook; Chae, Su Bok (2017) : Anchoring Effect of the Prosecutor's Demand on Sentence: Evidence from Korean Sexual Crime Cases, KDI Journal of Economic Policy, ISSN 2586-4130, Korea Development Institute (KDI), Sejong, Vol. 39, Iss. 3, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.23895/kdijep.2017.39.3.1 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/200809 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 KDI Journal of Economic Policy 2017, 39(3): 1 – 18 http://dx.doi.org/10.23895/kdijep.2017.39.3.1 1 Anchoring Effect of the Prosecutor’s Demand on Sentence: Evidence from Korean Sexual Crime Cases † By J UNGWOOK KIM AND S UBOK C HAE * The anchoring effect can be found when a decision shows cognitive prejudice towards the initial information given. Several studies have argued that such an effect is present even for judges in the courtroom. This paper seeks to find a relationship between judges’ decisions on penalty sentences and the sentences recommended by prosecutors. In this study, 2,773 actual court cases are considered in the analysis, and quantile regression is used to show that the sentencing decisions judges make are anchored by the recommendations of prosecutors. However, this reliance on recommendations differs according to the seriousness of the crime committed. Specifically, at the lowest penalty levels, a one-month increase in the prosecutors’ sentencing recommendation results in a 0.25-month increase in the judges’ sentence, while at the highest sentence level, the judges’ sentences increase by 0.78 months under an identical condition. The results of this research indicate the need to create more objective and clear sentencing guidelines in the future in an effort to mitigate the psychological pressure experienced by judges with regard to serious offences or heinous crimes. Key Word: Prosecutor, Anchoring Effect, Sentence JEL Code: K14, K42, D91 I. Introduction t is crucial to make fair and rational judgements in courts to consolidate the faith of people. If there is a gap between sentences for similar crimes or similar criminals, it can cause people to discredit the criminal justice system. Therefore, it * Kim: Fellow, Korea Development Institute (e-mail: [email protected]); Chae: Senior Researcher, Korea Development Institute (e-mail: [email protected]). * Received: 2016. 11. 9 * Referee Process Started: 2016. 11. 18 * Referee Reports Completed: 2017. 8. 8 † This paper is based upon Jungwook Kim and Subok Chae, Sentence Variation and Influence of Prosecutor’s Demand, Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, 2011. The authors are grateful to Suhyeon Wi for her great help. I INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 2 KDI Journal of Economic Policy AUGUST 2017 is important to verify whether reasonable decisions are made on each case where various factors can affect those decisions, including the final sentence of the judiciary. Judges are allowed to make decisions at their own discretion, as each case needs diverse perspectives and consideration of the circumstances to provide clear justice. However, the principle of discretion can hinder predictability and therefore acceptance of consequences. Here, we suggest that there is an anchoring effect on judges’ decisions and empirical results to prove the existence of this phenomenon. The empirical results provide fair insight into how a prosecutor’s declarations affect judges. First, judges’ sentences tend to be below the level of the prosecutors’ sentence recommendations. Second, the more serious the case is, the more sensitively judges respond to prosecutors’ recommendations. The following section describes both the data used here and the relationship between prosecutor demands and the decisions of judges for each decile of sentencing. The third section introduces the empirical model and reports and discusses the empirical findings, while the final section of the paper offers a summary and concluding remarks. II. Literature Review In one study of the jurisdictional process, Lee (1988) lists the characteristic factors and causal incidents affecting sentences and measures the degrees of those effects. This study suggests that several factors, including lower economic status and repeated convictions, induce longer sentences; however, there are still differences among judges. In another study, Lee (2006) investigated violent crimes and confirmed characteristics related to the final conviction level, while later Lee (2009) asserts that an upside-down U-shaped relationship exists between the criminal’s age and the sentence level. However, these studies were mostly based on small sample sizes. Other studies specifically focused on the anchoring effect during the prosecution process. Note that this paper attempts to analyze both sentencing disparities and the anchoring effect of the prosecutor’s sentencing demand. Many studies present results supporting the idea that the decisions of judges depend on an anchoring point. Park et al. (2005) and Kim and Choi (2010) give active judges in South Korea three different anchoring points (no anchor, low anchor, and high anchor) to assess whether their decisions change according to the information given. First, Park et al. (2005) analyzes the jurisdictional consequences of 158 judges in Daejeon in Korea. That study compared three types of hypothetical cases of sentencing after prosecutors’ recommendations of zero years, two years, and ten years, while controlling for other variables. Second, Kim and Choi (2010) conducted an experiment on 103 judges’ decisions in sexual harassment cases. Both surveys conclude that an anchoring effect exists, as judges facing higher recommendations tend to impose longer sentences. Hastie et al. (1999) and Malouff and Schutte (1989) find through an analysis of actual cases that amounts claimed by the plaintiff side can affect jurors’ decisions. The former conducted a controlled experiment and showed that juries were willing INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 VOL. 39 NO. 3 Anchoring Effect of the Prosecutor’s Demand on Sentence 3 to announce 2.5 times more compensation for plaintiffs. The latter also demonstrated the existence of the anchoring effect, finding that the amount of legal compensation is significantly influenced by the plaintiffs’ claims in civil cases. Viscusi (2001) and Hinsz and Indahl (1995) conducted surveys of citizens and college students to show that the anchoring effect exists during the process determining the penalty. The latter study divided the samples into three groups of high, low, and zero compensation for a traffic accident. The results were similar to those of Robbennolt and Studebaker (1999). Most importantly, Martin and Alonso (1997) conducted an empirical study of actual criminal court decisions. Their study showed stronger anchoring effects in sentences for sex crimes, minor rape cases, and rape cases, while no significant results were noted for rape attempts. Judges sentencing for serious crimes may tend to share responsibilities with prosecutors. Except for the last case, most previous studies rely on experiments based on civil disputes in a controlled environment. However, we need to identify these effects in actual criminal cases as well as civil trials. The analysis provided in this paper is expected to offer the following advantages over previous studies: first, a majority of existing studies were based on small-scale data pools, which limits the generalizability of their results. Meanwhile, this paper examines a total of 2,733 cases in order to enhance the reliability of the results. Second, the existing literature on the anchoring effect of the prosecution’s initial sentencing recommendation contends that sentencing recommendations present an obstacle for the judge when determining an objective and reasonable sentence. However, it would be more logical to consider the prosecution’s sentencing recommendations as professional opinions and to have judges makes rulings based on or in reference to the prosecution’s discernment. Third, actual cases were used for the data analysis, thus allowing empirical studies of sentencing disparities, which were lacking in previous studies. III. Data After collecting first trial cases on indictments from July 1, 2009 to October 10, 2011 in 52 categories of offences falling under the classification of sex crimes, 3,995 sex crimes were confirmed; 52 categories include rape, rape and murder, fatal rape, robbery and rape, forced indecency, and rape of minors, as listed in Table A1. Among these, 3,991 cases included data on the prosecution’s sentencing recommendation and 2,737 provided information on the judge’s eventual sentence. Finally, 2,733 sex crime cases were regarded as valid samples because information about the prosecution’s sentencing recommendation in four out of the original 2,737 cases was missing. Next, the above data were ranked according to the length of the judge’s sentence in months then split into deciles (273 cases in each decile based on the sentence level). Table 1 shows the statistical abstract of these valid samples. We divided the entire dataset evenly into ten groups based on the sentence level to avoid arbitrary data distortion and to conduct a quantile regression. Hypothesis and suppositions INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 4 KDI Journal of Economic Policy AUGUST 2017 T ABLE 1—S UMMARY OF J UDGES ’ S ENTENCES AND P ROSECUTORS ’ R ECOMMENDATIONS Level of Sentence Number of Samples Mean Median Std. Dev. Paired t-test A N S N Judge Prosecutor Judge Prosecutor Judge Prosecutor 1 273 6 5.6 18.4 6 12 3.15 14.12 -14.69 2 273 3 14.5 30.7 12 24 3.18 17.86 -15.39 3 273 12 20.1 38.3 18 36 2.88 17.56 -17.93 4 273 15 28.0 42.8 30 36 2.82 15.98 -15.18 5 273 16 30.0 44.5 30 36 0.00 16.85 -14.20 6 273 13 30.0 47.7 30 36 0.00 21.46 -13.66 7 273 11 35.3 61.5 36 60 1.92 21.77 -20.38 8 273 13 40.2 66.2 36 60 4.84 23.33 -19.12 9 273 11 58.1 88.9 60 84 6.38 37.04 -14.15 10 276 31 100.2 153.3 84 120 37.34 125.88 -7.65 Total 2,733 131 36.3 59.4 30 48 28.19 57.92 -27.86 Note: 1) The unit of sentencing is months. 2) As the fifth and sixth deciles have the same mean, we ordered those two segments according to the recommendation level. 3) N a indicates the total number of samples, and N s indicates the number of times in which the judge’s sentence surpasses the prosecution’s sentencing recommendation. 4) The paired t-test verifies whether the differences between the sample means of the judge’s sentences and those of the prosecution’s sentencing recommendations are statistically meaningful. F IGURE 1. P ROSECUTOR ’ S R ECOMMENDATIONS AND J UDGE ’ S S ENTENCES are addressed in chapter IV. Although some of the judge’s sentences were indeed more severe than that recommended by the prosecutor, most of the judge’s sentences were a fraction of what was recommended. Only 131 out of 2,733 (4.8%) were cases in which the sentence from the judge exceeded the sentencing recommendation. An examination of the sample means of each decile reveal that the mean of the prosecutor’s requests was stricter than the mean of the sentences pronounced by the judges Figure 1. In addition, Figure 2 shows the ratio of the judge’s sentencing level to the prosecution’s sentencing recommendation. From the third decile and above, these values are between 0.55-0.67 which indicates that the judges generally levy a sentence in a range lower than that recommended by the prosecutors. In this paper, factors that affect the sentencing by a judge were determined by INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 VOL. 39 NO. 3 Anchoring Effect of the Prosecutor’s Demand on Sentence 5 F IGURE 2. R ATIO OF THE S ENTENCING L EVEL TO THE R ECOMMENDED S ENTENCING L EVEL examining processing data from the Prosecutorial Guideline System (PGS), which contains information about each case. Sentencing factors were divided in aggravating variables and mitigating variables. These were subdivided into general and special factors. Sentencing factors consist of 22 variables which include four special mitigating factors, four general mitigating factors, seven general aggravating factors, and seven special aggravating factors. 1 First, the characteristics of special mitigating factors will be explained. CRA_MHD in the PGS defines the method used during the crime, which provides information about whether or not the crime is classified as simple violence by Korean law, whether a deadly weapon was used, whether a mental disorder existed due to the use of drugs, and whether authority and force were used. CRA_MHD_5 (sd1) in the PGS data indicates the use of fraudulent means or a threat of force. Self-denunciation (sd2) and a confession (sd3) are considered as special mitigating factors. These variables could raise concern about multicollinearity which may arise when correlations among variables cause problems in the regression analysis, as self-denunciation by a suspect implies that he/she has offered a confession. However, as shown in Table 3, the total number of cases of self-denunciation accounts for only 1.65 percent. Most of criminal cases are resolved through an arrest rather than by self-denunciation, and those offenders commonly confess. This relieves concerns about multicollinearity between sd2 and sd3. Lastly, whether or not the victim of the sex crime pursues punishment is also a special mitigating factor (sd4). In sex crimes, both the will of the victim and that of his/her family for punishment are taken into consideration, but this paper accounts only for the victim’s will. Therefore, if the victim desires punishment, it is scored as ‘1’, with a score of ‘0’ otherwise. The group composed of general mitigating factors considers whether or not the 1 Sentencing guidelines from advanced research conducted by Lee and Park (2010) analyzing sentencing factors of sex crimes based on the guidelines set by the Sentencing Commission of the Supreme Court of Korea are correspondingly applied to the selection of sentencing factors in this paper. INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 6 KDI Journal of Economic Policy AUGUST 2017 accused undertakes serious reflection on their criminal conduct (gd1). In the PGS, the existence of serious reflection is shown in SLEXM_YN as ‘1’, and whereas the absence is ‘2’. However, ‘2’ is converted to ‘0’, which shows that the accused undertook no serious reflection. Approximately 42 percent of criminal cases indicated that the defendants reflected on their crimes. CNSP_XTN in PGS shows whether there was passive participation in the crime (gd2). The data for passive participation was indicated as ‘03’ in CNSP_XTN but was converted to ‘1’. Other values in addition to ‘03’ were all converted to ‘0’. Whether or not the accused has a criminal record is regarded as a mitigating factor, OFN_PRCD_8 (gd3), in this paper. Thus, if he/she has no such record, it is treated as ‘1’, whereas the opposite is scored as ‘0’. Lastly, DMG_RVR_EFT_YN in the PGS shows the existence of a sufficient compensation deposit (gd4, which is considered a general mitigating factor that indicates whether the accused is making serious efforts to compensate for damages even when he/she fails to reach an agreement). Seven general aggravating factors are considered. Premeditated crime (ga1) distinguishes between cases in which the commission of a crime is premeditated or accidental. The existence of multiple instances of sexual intercourse during the period of an offence (ga2) indicates that the defendant committed multiple crimes. In other words, he/she is charged with repeated criminal conduct instead of a single sex crime. Whether or not a case falls under Article 7 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (ga3) is another aggravating factor under the special act. If it does, the data is scored as ‘07’ in SPCL_LAW_ICRS_YN in the PGS and is converted to ‘1’. If not under the special act, it is scored as '0'. The use of fiduciary relations (ga4) is also considered an aggravating factor. It is defined as follows: ‘It could be extensively believed that in terms of the motive, means, and results, etc., of a crime, that the accused abuses the mutual trust with a victim in the commission of a crime against the victim with whom the accused maintains an interpersonal relationship’. ICRS_ELMT_2 is used in the PGS to show the existence of a fiduciary relationship. Whether the criminal motive is to avoid condemnation (ga5) is another general aggravating factor. In other words, this factor is related to the following cases: ‘the commission of a crime to prevent the victim from reporting it while he/she commits other criminal acts’; ‘the commission of a crime to acquire benefits to property’; ‘the commission of a crime out of retaliation, resentment or hatred towards the victim’; and ‘the commission of a crime for other purposes equivalent to the aforementioned causes’. Causing mental disorder (ga6), which falls under CRA_MHD, means that a defendant commits a criminal act after mentally debilitating the victim using drugs to render the victim unable to protest. This is represented by CRA_MHD_6 in PGS. The final factor in the group is the presence of sadistic sexual acts (ga7), which is designated as NV_AGG_ACT in the PGS. Finally, there are seven special aggravating factors. The act of compounding the victim’s humiliation (sa1) is represented by ICRS_ELMT_1 in the PGS, and approximately 12.3 percent of all samples include this factor. Whether a victim is among those considered especially vulnerable to a crime (sa2) is linked to crimes against groups such as those who are mentally impaired or children. If a victim is vulnerable, VTM_DLCT in the PGS is classified as ‘1’; otherwise, it is ‘0’. The existence of special robbery refers to whether offences include not only a sex VOL. 39 NO. 3 Anchoring Effect of the Prosecutor’s Demand on Sentence 7 TABLE 2—PROSECUTORIAL GUIDELINE SYSTEM AND FACTORS Sentencing Factors Variable PGS Code Treatment of Vari ab le Special Mitigation sd1 Yes = 1 No = 0 sd2 sd3 sd4 General Mitigation gd1 gd2 gd3 gd4 General Aggravation ga1 ga2 ga3 ga4 ga5 ga6 ga7 Special Aggravation sa1 sa2 sa3 sa4 sa5 sa6 Use of Authority and Force (without violence·threat) Self-denunciation Confession Victim’s Will not to Punish Serious Reflection Passive Participation Record of Criminal Punishment Sufficient Compensation Deposit Premeditated Crimes Multiple Occasions of Sexual Intercourse during the Period of an Offence Pertinent to Article 7 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse Abuse of Interpersonal Relationship Crimes for the Purpose of Avoiding Condemnation Causing Mental Disorder Sadistic Sexual Acts Act to Compound a Victim’s Humiliation Victim Vulnerable to a Crime Inclusion of Special Robbery Gang Rape Victim’s Pregnancy Repetition of a Crime of the Same Type not under Relative Special Acts Commission of Instigation against Those So Directed sa7 CRA_MHD_5 SSRD_YN CNF_YN VTM_PNH_DCTR SLEXM_YN CNSP_XTN OFN_PRCD_8 DMG_RVR_EFT_YN PLAN_LSNM_YN ACT_TMS_2 SPCL_LAW_ICRS_YN ICRS_ELMT_2 BLM_MTV1,2,3,4 CRA_MHD_6 NV_AGG_ACT ICRS_ELMT_1 VTM_DLCT SLP_ICRS_ELMT_5 GRP_YN VTM_PRGN OFN_PRCD_2 CTR_CMDR_ABET Note: Codes of sentencing factors for cases by the Office of the Supreme Prosecutor in the PGS are used. 8 KDI Journal of Economic Policy AUGUST 2017 TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF PROSECUTORIAL GUIDELINE SYSTEM AND FACTORS Name of Variable Number of Samples Mean Sample Deviation sd1 2733 0.0820 0.2744 sd2 2733 0.0165 0.1273 sd3 2733 0.6378 0.4807 sd4 2733 0.7750 0.4177 gd1 2733 0.4171 0.4932 gd2 2733 0.0051 0.0714 gd3 2733 0.2561 0.4366 gd4 2733 0.0717 0.2581 ga1 2733 0.2177 0.4128 ga2 2733 0.0424 0.2016 ga3 2733 0.0827 0.2755 ga4 2733 0.1870 0.3900 ga5 2733 0.0402 0.1966 ga6 2733 0.0121 0.1092 ga7 2733 0.0048 0.0688 sa1 2733 0.1233 0.4259 sa2 2733 0.0048 0.0688 sa3 2733 0.0059 0.0763 sa4 2733 0.0337 0.1804 sa5 2733 0.0088 0.0933 sa6 2733 0.0274 0.1634 sa7 2733 0.0015 0.0382 prose 2733 59.3513 57.9213 judge Use of Authority and Force (without violence or threat) Self-denunciation Confession Victim’s Will not to Punish Serious Reflection Passive Participation Record of Criminal Punishment Sufficient Compensation Deposit Premeditated Crimes Multiple Occasions of Sexual Intercourse during the Period of an Offence Pertinent to Article 7 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse Abuse of Interpersonal Relationship Crimes for the Purpose of Avoiding Condemnation Causing Mental Disorder Sadistic Sexual Acts Act to Compound a Victim’s Humiliation Victim Vulnerable to a Crime Inclusion of Special Robbery Gang Rape Victim’s Pr egnancy Repetition of a Crime of the Same Type not under Relative Special Acts Commission of Instigation against Those So Directed Prosecution’s Sentencing Recommendation Judge’s Sentence 2733 36.2678 28.1906 INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 VOL. 39 NO. 3 Anchoring Effect of the Prosecutor’s Demand on Sentence 15 prosecutors led to an increase of 0.25 to 0.78 months in the judges’ sentences from the lowest 10% to the highest 10%. This indicates that judges apply a certain discount to the sentences recommended by prosecutors. Although judges do generally anchor their decisions to the sentence levels requested by prosecutors, judges tend to choose a sentence level lower than that provided by prosecutors. Third, although prosecutors’ sentencing recommendations impact judges’ decisions, the degree differs with the sentence level. Specifically, at the lowest level of penalty, a one-month increase in a prosecutor’s sentencing recommendation results in a 0.25-month increase in the judge’s sentence, while at the highest sentence level, judges’ sentences increase by 0.78 months. The prosecution’s recommendation influences judges’ decisions differently according to the sentence level. This can be also identified in work by Martin and Alonso (1997), in which judges were found to be anchored to the sentence recommended by the prosecutor in cases of rape or incidents with minors, while the anchoring effect appears to be insignificant in sex offences of relatively lower severity, including sexual intercourse by abuse of occupational authority or attempted rape. Judges’ sentences were determined to be independent of those of prosecutors. This study attempted to interpret the results in terms of psychology – sex offences including rape or incidents with minors are recognized by society as serious crimes; therefore, judges, who must determine the level of penalty, tend to share the responsibility by accepting the sentence recommended by the prosecutor. However, for offenses including sexual intercourse by abuse of occupational authority or attempted rape, they are deemed to be relatively less serious and thus judges make independent choices. This implies that the anchoring effect can manifest itself to a varying degree according to the gravity of the crime involved. However, unlike Martin and Alonso (1997), which posits no anchoring effect with less serious crimes, this study found that prosecutors’ sentencing recommendations indeed influence judges’ decisions, even at less severe sentencing levels. Nonetheless, judges did retain space for sentencing independently in less serious cases, and this discretion caused judges to refer to the sentences recommended by prosecutors to a lesser extent. It is therefore possible to infer that the anchoring of judges to recommendations by the prosecution grows weaker in cases with more lenient sentence levels. This study has thus far analyzed how sentences recommended by prosecutors influence judges’ decisions in an examination of an offense. It holds implications in that it has identified an anchoring effect through South Korean and intentional references making use of simulations, as well as through actual cases derived from the PGS system and sorted through a regression analysis. In addition, the results here indicate a need to create more objective and clear sentencing guidelines in the future which incorporate an effort to mitigate the psychological pressure experienced by judges with regard to serious offences or heinous crimes. This pressure can anchor them to the sentence recommended by the prosecutor. Nevertheless, this study includes several limitations, as follows. The current paper cannot take into account the endogeneity problem in the analysis. It may be that the prosecutors’ demands depend on the (expected) judge’s sentence, which indicates the possibility of reverse causality. More refined data analysis or a more elaborate theoretical approach will be able to demonstrate the existence of an INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 16 KDI Journal of Economic Policy AUGUST 2017 anchoring effect while also addressing this problem. Secondly, because the study analyzed only those cases pertaining to sex offences, it is necessary to remain cautious against generalizing the results to other crimes. In other words, the nature of the crimes may vary according to the category of the crimes. This may lead to a gap between the levels of penalty recommended by a prosecutor and the judge’s confidence level regarding the prosecutor’s suggestion. This would result in different levels of the anchoring effect depending on the crime. In order to overcome this limitation, the authors hope to pursue a more systematic follow-up study to analyze all categories of crime, based on this research, and determine more precisely why judges depend on prosecutors’ sentencing recommendations. In addition, further analysis is possible to explain additional factors which influence judges’ sentences and to show the anchoring effect more clearly. The data can include more information on sex crimes, such as whether or not they were premeditated, caused mental disorders, or committed by acquaintances. Additional research can identify factors that have more of an impact on judges’ decisions. APPENDIX TABLE A1—CLASSIFICATIONS OF SEX CRIMES IN KOREA Classification of Sex Crimes by Names of Offences Rape Murder after Rape Rape and Bodily Injury Rape Resulting in Death Bodily Injury Resulting from Rape Robbery and Rape Indecent Act by Compulsion Indecent Act by Compulsion and Bodily Injury Bodily Injury Resulting from Indecent Act by Compulsion Rape of a Minor Indecent Act by Compulsion with a Minor Bodily Injury Resulting from Indecent Act by Compulsion with a Minor Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Rape of a Minor under Thirteen Years of Age) Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Murder after Rape, etc.) Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Rape and Bodily Injury, etc.) Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Rape, etc. Resulting in Death) Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Bodily Injury Resulting from Rape, etc.) Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Quasi-Rape of the Disabled, etc.) Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Larceny and Rape, etc.) Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Intrusion upon a Habitation and Rape, etc.) Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Rape Committed by a Relative) Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Indecent Act by Compulsion Committed by a Relative) Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Quasi-Rape Committed by a Relative) INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 VOL. 39 NO. 3 Anchoring Effect of the Prosecutor’s Demand on Sentence 17 TABLE A1—CLASSIFICATIONS OF SEX CRIMES IN KOREA (CONTINUED) Classification of Sex Crimes by Names of Offences Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Quasi-Indecent Act by Compulsion Committed by a Relative) Violation of Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Special Rape) Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Special Robbery and Rape, etc.) Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Special Indecent Act by Compulsion) Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Special Quasi-Rape) Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Special Quasi-Indecent Act by Compulsion) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (Rape of a Minor under Thirteen Years of Age) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (Murder after Rape, etc.) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (Rape and Bodily Injury, etc.) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (Bodily Injury Resulting from Rape, etc.) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (Quasi-Rape of the Disabled, etc.) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (Larceny and Rape, etc.) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (Intrusion upon a Habitation and Rape, etc.) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (Rape Committed by a Relative) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (Indecent Act by Compulsion Committed by a Relative) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (Quasi-Rape Committed by a Relative) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (Quasi-Indecent Act by Compulsion Committed by a Relative) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (Special Rape) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (Special Robbery and Rape, etc.) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (Special Indecent Act by Compulsion) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (Special Quasi-Rape) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (Special Quasi-Indecent Act by Compulsion) REFERENCES Hastie, R., D. A. Schkade, and J. W. Payne. 1999. “Juror Judgments in Civil Cases: Effects of Plaintiff’s Requests and Plaintiff's Identity on Punitive Damage Awards.” Law and Human Behavior 23 (4). Hinsz, V. B. and K. E. Indahl. 1995. “Assimilation to Anchors for Damage Awards in a Mock Civil Trial.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25 (11). Kim, Cheong-tag and In-chol Choi. 2010. “Cognitive Biases in Judicial Decision Making.” The SNU Law Research Institute 51 (4) (in Korean). Kim, Jungwook and Subok Chae. 2011. Sentence Variation and Influence of Prosecutor’s Demand. Supreme Prosecutors’ Office (in Korean). Koenker, R. and G. Basset. 1978. “Regression Quantiles.” Econometrica 46 (1). Lee, Min-sik. 2006. “Sentencing Differences among Homicide Cases.” Korean Criminological INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 INSIDabcdef_:MS_0001MS_0001 18 KDI Journal of Economic Policy AUGUST 2017 Review 17 (4) (in Korean). Lee, Min-sik, Jung-sik Gong, and Soo-jung Lee. 2009. “Age and Sentencing Disparities among Murderers: An Examination of Nonlinear Effects.” The Korean Association of Criminology 21 (1) (in Korean). Lee, Min-sik and Mi-rang Park. 2010. “Study on Improvement of the Current Sentencing Standards and Analysis of Its Current Status: Based on the Statistical Analysis.” Supreme Prosecutor’s Office (in Korean). Lee, Young-rahn. 1988. “Empirical Study of the Factors Influencing on the Sentence Disposition.” The Korean Association of Criminology 3 (in Korean). Malouff, J and Nicola S. Schutte. 1989. “Shaping Juror Attitudes: Effects of Requesting Different Damage Amounts in Personal Injury Trials.” The Journal of Social Psychology 129 (4). Martin, Eugenio Garrido, and Carmen Herrero Alonso. 1997. “Influence of the Prosecutor’s Plea on the Judge’s Sentencing in Sexual Crimes: Hypothesis of the Theory of Anchoring by Tversky and Kahneman.” In edited by S. Redondo, V. Garrido, J. Perez, and R. Barberel. Advances in Psychology and Law: International Contributions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Park, Gwang-bae, Sang-joon Kim, and Mi-young Han. 2005. “Effects of Cognitive Heuristics on the Decisions of Actual Judges and Mock Jury Groups for Simulated Trial Issues.” Korean Journal of Psychological and Social Issues 11 (1) (in Korean). Robbennolt, J. and C. A. Studebaker. 1999. “Anchoring in the Courtroom: The Effects of Caps on Punitive Damages.” Law and Human Behavior 23 (3). Supreme Prosecutors’ Office. 2011. Sentence Variation and Influence of Prosecutor’s Demand Viscusi, W. K. 2001. “The Challenge of Punitive Damages Mathematics.” The Journal of Legal Studies 30. LITERATURE IN KOREAN 김정욱·채수복. 2011. 『구형과 양형 간의 관계 및 양형 편차에 대한 연구』. 대검찰청. 김청택·최인철. 2010. 「법정의사결정에서의 판사들의 인지편향 」 . 『서울대학교 法學 』. 제51권 제4호. 서울대학교. 박광배·김상준·한미영. 2005. 「가상적인 재판 쟁점에서의 현역판사의 판단과 모의재심의 집단판단에 대한 인지적 방략의 효과 」 . 『한국사회문제심리학회지』. 제11권 제1호. 이민식. 2006. 「살인범들의 양형에 영향을 미치는 요인 」 . 『형사정책연구』. 제17권 제4호. 이민식·공정식·이수정. 2009. 「연령과 살인범의 양형편차: 비선형 효과의 검토 」 . 『형사정책연구』. 제21권 제1호. 이민식·박미랑. 2010. 『양형기준 시행현황 분석 및 개선방안에 관한 연구-통계적 분석을 중심으로』. 연구용역보고서. 대검찰청. 이영란. 1988. 「양형의 결정요인에 대한 실증적 연구–상해, 폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률위반사건을 중심 으로 」 . 『형사정책연구』. 제3권. 양형위원회. 2007-2010. 『양형위원회 연간보고서』.