It has been argued that there will be more efficient deterrence if no restrictions are placed on the ability of the rich to buy better legal representation than the poor when accused of a crime: such restrictions lead to over-deterrence of the wealthy. We show that the conclusion does not hold when account is taken of the effect of restrictions on legal defence expenditure on the extent of under-deterrence.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Department of Economics, University of York in its series Discussion Papers with number
00/07.
Length: Date of creation: Date of revision: Handle: RePEc:yor:yorken:00/07
Contact details of provider: Postal: Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, United Kingdom Phone: (0)1904 433776 Fax: (0)1904 433759 Email: Web page: http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/econ/ More information through EDIRC
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Michael Shallcross).
Related research
Keywords:
Other versions of this item:
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Nuno Garoupa & Frank H Stephen, 2004.
"Optimal Law Enforcement with Legal Aid,"
Economica,
London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 71(283), pages 493-500, 08.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)