Making just decisions in magistrates' courts

Professional magistrates' sentencing procedures were examined as prototypic cases of expert processes involved in making just decisions, with analysis of their attention to information and the inferences they drew from case details and their own patterned knowledge. Magistrates' sorting and verbalized sentencing of six shoplifting cases revealed that they were accessing and using three schemas for categorizing shoplifters, with different emphases and valences, and different penalties. The schemas categorized shoplifters as cases of greed, need, or troubled persons. Tough magistrates followed the greed schema more than the lenient who followed the need and troubled schemas more consistently. Information use and inferences in a sample case illustrate schema differences.