Editing Availability heuristic (section)

===Criminal justice===
The media usually focuses on violent or extreme cases, which are more readily available in the public's mind. This may come into play when it is time for the judicial system to evaluate and determine the proper punishment for a crime. In one study, respondents rated how much they agreed with hypothetical laws and policies such as "Would you support a law that required all offenders convicted of unarmed muggings to serve a minimum prison term of two years?" Participants then read cases and rated each case on several questions about punishment. As hypothesized, respondents recalled more easily from [[long-term memory]] stories that contain severe harm, which seemed to influence their sentencing choices to make them push for harsher punishments. This can be eliminated by adding high concrete or high contextually distinct details into the crime stories about less severe injuries.<ref name="Stalans1993">{{Cite journal |last=Stalans |first=Loretta J. |year=1993 |title=Citizens' crime stereotypes, biased recall, and punishment preferences in abstract cases: The educative role of interpersonal sources. |journal=Law and Human Behavior |volume=17 |issue=4 |pages=451–470 |doi=10.1007/BF01044378 |issn=1573-661X |s2cid=142611246}}</ref>

A similar study asked jurors and college students to choose sentences on four severe criminal cases in which prison was a possible but not an inevitable sentencing outcome. Respondents answering questions about court performance on a public opinion formulated a picture of what the courts do and then evaluated the appropriateness of that behavior. Respondents recalled public information about crime and sentencing. This type of information is incomplete because the news media present a highly selective and non-[[representative sample|representative]] selection of crime, focusing on the violent and extreme, rather than the ordinary. This makes most people think that judges are too lenient. But, when asked to choose the punishments, the sentences given by students were equal to or less severe than those given by judges. In other words, the availability heuristic made people believe that judges and jurors were too lenient in the courtroom, but the participants gave similar sentences when placed in the position of the judge, suggesting that the information they recalled was not correct.<ref name="DiamondStalans1989">{{Cite journal |last1=Diamond |first1=Shari Seidman |last2=Stalans |first2=Loretta J. |year=1989 |title=The myth of judicial leniency in sentencing |journal=Behavioral Sciences & the Law |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=73–89 |doi=10.1002/bsl.2370070106 |issn=0735-3936}}</ref>

Researchers in 1989 predicted that mock jurors would rate a witness to be ''more'' deceptive if the witness testified truthfully ''before'' lying than when the witness was caught lying first before telling the truth. If the availability heuristic played a role in this, lying second would remain in jurors' minds (since it was more recent) and they would most likely remember the witness lying over the truthfulness. To test the hypothesis, 312 university students played the roles of mock jurors and watched a videotape of a witness presenting testimony during a trial. Results confirmed the hypothesis, as mock jurors were most influenced by the most recent act.<ref name="deTurckTexter1989">{{Cite journal |last1=deTurck |first1=M. A. |last2=Texter |first2=L. A. |last3=Harszlak |first3=J. J. |year=1989 |title=Effects of Information Processing Objectives on Judgments of Deception Following Perjury |journal=Communication Research |volume=16 |issue=3 |pages=434–452 |doi=10.1177/009365089016003006 |issn=0093-6502 |s2cid=145495112}}</ref>