Deterrence versus Judicial Error: A Comparative View of Standards of Proof
AbstractWe argue that the common-law standard of proof, given the rules of evidence, does not minimize expected error as usually argued in the legal literature, but may well be efficient from the standpoint of providing maximal incentives for socially desirable behavior. By contrast, civil law's higher but somewhat imprecise standard may be interpreted as reflecting a trade-off between providing incentives and avoiding judicial error per se. In our model, the optimal judicial system has rules resembling those in the common law when providing incentives is paramount. When greater weight is given to avoiding error, the optimal system has civil-law features.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen in its journal Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics.
Volume (Year): 161 (2005)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.mohr.de/jite
Postal: Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, P.O.Box 2040, 72010 Tübingen, Germany
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
- K4 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Matteo Rizzolli & Luca Stanca, 2012.
"Judicial Errors and Crime Deterrence: Theory and Experimental Evidence,"
Journal of Law and Economics,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(2), pages 311 - 338.
- Matteo Rizzolli & Luca Stanca, 2009. "Judicial Errors and Crime Deterrence: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 170, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2009.
- Dominique Demougin & Claude Fluet, 2008.
"Rules of proof, courts, and incentives,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
RAND Corporation, vol. 39(1), pages 20-40.
- Antonio Nicita & Matteo Rizzolli, 2013.
"In Dubio Pro Reo. Behavioral explanations of pro-defendant bias in procedures,"
BEMPS - Bozen Economics & Management Paper Series
BEMPS04, School of Economics and Management at the Free University of Bozen.
- Antonio Nicita & Matteo Rizzolli, 2012. "In Dubio Pro Reo. Behavioral explanations of pro-defendant bias in procedures," Department of Economics University of Siena 637, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
- Fluet, Claude, 2010.
"Liability rules under evidentiary uncertainty,"
International Review of Law and Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-9, March.
- Bruno Deffains & Claude Fluet, 2007. "Legal versus Normative Incentives under Judicial Error," Cahiers de recherche 0718, CIRPEE.
- Anja Olbrich, 2008. "The optimal negligence standard in health care under supply-side cost sharing," International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 73-85, June.
- Bruno Deffains & Claude Fluet, 2013. "The Role of Social Image Concerns in the Design of Legal Regimes," Cahiers de recherche 1321, CIRPEE.
- repec:ebl:ecbull:v:11:y:2006:i:2:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Thomas Wolpert).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.