In-Group Favoritism in Sentencing Among the Courtroom Workgroup? Evidence From Hong Kong

Understanding the impact of legal professionals on sentencing outcomes is currently limited. This study uses the social psychology theory of in-group favoritism, the courtroom workgroup theory, and the experience/skill of legal professionals to analyze how the roles of lawyers, prosecutors, and judges affect plea and sentencing outcomes. It goes beyond existing literature, which mainly distinguishes between privately retained lawyers and legal aid lawyers, by also including public prosecutors and prosecutors on fiat (defense lawyers working as prosecutors on an ad-hoc basis) and full-time and deputy judges. By examining court sentencing data from Hong Kong, it was found that legal aid lawyers significantly correlated with more lenient sentences, whereas public prosecutors significantly correlated with more severe sentences. However, upon examining plea cases exclusively, it was discovered that only public prosecutors demonstrated a significant association with a higher number of guilty pleas and more severe sentences. The findings partially support in-group favoritism and courtroom workgroup theories, suggesting that legal professionals viewed as “insiders” in the court system achieve more favorable sentencing outcomes aligned with their professional goals. The differences highlighted in this research may stem from Hong Kong’s unique plea bargaining environment, which varies from that in other Western jurisdictions.