Proportionality in Criminal Sentencing: A Cognitive Hypothesis.

This article focuses on a cognitive-psychological model of proportionality in punishment, defined as the idea that the severity of a punishment should correspond to the severity of the crime. It argues that proportionality is cognitively intuitive—rooted in a natural mental computation linking harm to blame—but is difficult to apply non-arbitrarily to prison sentences due to challenges in precisely scaling harms to lengths of incarceration. This dual nature helps explain historical difficulties in institutionalizing proportionality in US sentencing policy, the political flexibility sentencing decision makers have in invoking proportionality, and the susceptibility of judges to anchoring effects when determining sentences. The article further discusses normative implications, such as advocating caution in sentencing due to these cognitive limitations, and suggests future research directions exploring how mental representations influence perceptions of proportionality and the partly conventional nature of its application across cultures.