Cognitive continuum theory points to the middle-ground between the intuitive and analytic modes of cognition, called quasirationality. In the context of sentencing, we discuss how legal models prescribe the use of different modes of cognition. These models aim to help judges perform the cognitive balancing act required between factors indicating a more or less severe penalty for an offender. We compare sentencing in three common law jurisdictions (i.e., Australia, the US, and England and Wales). Each places a different emphasis on the use of intuition and analysis; but all are quasirational. We conclude that the most appropriate mode of cognition will likely be that which corresponds best with properties of the sentencing task. Finally, we discuss the implications of this cognition-task correspondence approach for researchers and legal policy-makers.
|Number of pages||9|
|Journal||Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition|
|Early online date||2014|
|Publication status||Published - Sep 2015|