Wow, a huge effect on sentencing (fine amounts, prison term lengths) but no effect on conviction rate? That seems hard to believe.
If true, it means that this bias could be fairly straightforward to correct in theory, though in practice I doubt people would accept the necessity or fairness of such corrections.
With the exception of mandatory minimums, sentencing usually is broadly subjective with judges having significant leeway. In contrast, convictions are based on juries who are provided strict instructions on how they must arrive at a verdict. Swaying the judge can you get you lighter sentencing but has no impact on the verdict.
I'm aware of this distinction, and yet I too am a little surprised, only because I'm so used to seeing people manage to convince themselves against fairly objective truths in the name of following their emotions.
I'm surprised too, but conviction does seem to be the more objective part. Sentencing can vary on the attitude, etc. and is inherently more subjective in practice IMO.
If true, it means that this bias could be fairly straightforward to correct in theory, though in practice I doubt people would accept the necessity or fairness of such corrections.