IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/rlecon/v8y2012i3p579-618n9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Prosecutor's Incentives in Creating Congestion in Criminal Courts

Author

Listed:
  • Shamir Noam

    (Stanford University)

  • Shamir Julia

    (Northwestern University)

Abstract

While much legal research has examined the problem of court delays and backlogs, the link between the prosecutor’s incentives to press charges and the subsequent effect on congestion in the criminal justice system has remained largely overlooked. To understand the implications of such decisions for court congestion, we model prosecutor incentives using queuing theory. We demonstrate that a benevolent decision-maker weighs the trade-off between the desire to increase the volume of cases reaching the court in order to convict the guilty and the delay costs that are due to the length of court proceedings. Using two prosecutorial incentive schemes that have previously been identified in the literature—the conviction rate and the total number of convictions—we find that a prosecutor who is acting to increase his own utility would deviate from charging the socially-desired number of cases. Following these negative results, we design a mechanism that induces the prosecutor to press charges in the socially-optimal number of cases. Also new in this paper is the methodology of using queuing theory in conjunction with issues of court delay and prosecution incentives. While thus far this tool has been widely applied in other disciplines of economics research, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to utilize this method in issues related to court congestion.

Suggested Citation

  • Shamir Noam & Shamir Julia, 2012. "The Role of Prosecutor's Incentives in Creating Congestion in Criminal Courts," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(3), pages 579-618, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:8:y:2012:i:3:p:579-618:n:9
    DOI: 10.1515/1555-5879.1637
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/1555-5879.1637
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/1555-5879.1637?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gregory A. Huber & Sanford C. Gordon, 2004. "Accountability and Coercion: Is Justice Blind when It Runs for Office?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(2), pages 247-263, April.
    2. Barzel, Yoram, 1974. "A Theory of Rationing by Waiting," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(1), pages 73-95, April.
    3. Lode Vereeck & Manuela Mühl, 2000. "An Economic Theory of Court Delay," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 243-268, November.
    4. Harnay, Sophie & Marciano, Alain, 2003. "Judicial conformity versus dissidence: an economic analysis of judicial precedent," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 405-420, December.
    5. Lupia,Arthur & McCubbins,Mathew D., 1998. "The Democratic Dilemma," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521585934, July.
    6. Polinsky, A Mitchell & Shavell, Steven, 1999. "On the Disutility and Discounting of Imprisonment and the Theory of Deterrence," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 1-16, January.
    7. Champion, Dean J., 1989. "Private counsels and public defenders: A look at weak cases, prior records, and leniency in plea bargaining," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 253-263.
    8. Gordon, Sanford C., 2009. "Assessing Partisan Bias in Federal Public Corruption Prosecutions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(4), pages 534-554, November.
    9. Daniel, Joseph I, 1995. "Congestion Pricing and Capacity of Large Hub Airports: A Bottleneck Model with Stochastic Queues," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(2), pages 327-370, March.
    10. Listokin, Yair, 2002. "Efficient Time Bars: A New Rationale for the Existence of Statutes of Limitations in Criminal Law," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 99-118, January.
    11. Timothy Besley & Stephen Coate, 2003. "Elected Versus Appointed Regulators: Theory and Evidence," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(5), pages 1176-1206, September.
    12. Di Vita, Giuseppe, 2010. "Production of laws and delays in court decisions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 276-281, September.
    13. Davidson, Carl, 1988. "Equilibrium in Servicing Industries: An Economic Application of Queuing Theory," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(3), pages 347-367, July.
    14. Schulhofer, Stephen J, 1988. "Criminal Justice Discretion as a Regulatory System," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(1), pages 43-82, January.
    15. Gad Allon & Awi Federgruen, 2009. "Competition in Service Industries with Segmented Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(4), pages 619-634, April.
    16. Boylan, Richard T & Long, Cheryl X, 2005. "Salaries, Plea Rates, and the Career Objectives of Federal Prosecutors," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(2), pages 627-651, October.
    17. Jennifer Reinganum, 2000. "Sentencing Guidelines, Judicial Discretion, and Plea Bargaining," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(1), pages 62-81, Spring.
    18. Andrew Torre, 2003. "The Impact of Court Delays on the Prosecutor and the Defendant: An Economic Analysis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 91-111, July.
    19. Lupia, Arthur, 1992. "Busy Voters, Agenda Control, and the Power of Information," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(2), pages 390-403, June.
    20. Echazu, Luciana & Garoupa, Nuno, 2012. "Why not adopt a loser-pays-all rule in criminal litigation?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 233-241.
    21. Miceli, Thomas J, 1990. "Optimal Prosecution of Defendants Whose Guilt Is Uncertain," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 189-201, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bryan C. McCannon & Joylynn Pruitt, 2018. "Taking on the boss: Informative contests in prosecutor elections," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 20(5), pages 657-671, October.
    2. Giuseppe Vita, 2012. "Normative complexity and the length of administrative disputes: evidence from Italian regions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 197-213, August.
    3. Panayotis Kapopoulos & Anastasios Rizos, 2024. "Judicial efficiency and economic growth: Evidence based on European Union data," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 71(1), pages 101-131, February.
    4. Sanford C. Gordon & Hannah K. Simpson, 2020. "Causes, theories, and the past in political science," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(3), pages 315-333, December.
    5. Bielen Samantha & Marneffe Wim & Vereeck Lode, 2015. "An Empirical Analysis of Case Disposition Time in Belgium," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 293-316, July.
    6. Valentino Larcinese, 2007. "Does political knowledge increase turnout? Evidence from the 1997 British general election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 387-411, June.
    7. Stefan Voigt, 2016. "Determinants of judicial efficiency: a survey," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 183-208, October.
    8. Marc T. Law & Cheryl X. Long, 2011. "Revolving door laws and state public utility commissioners," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(4), pages 405-424, December.
    9. Chen, Daniel L., 2016. "Priming Ideology: Why Presidential Elections Affect U.S. Judges," TSE Working Papers 16-681, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Aug 2016.
    10. Lundberg, Alexander, 2016. "Sentencing discretion and burdens of proof," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 34-42.
    11. Yehonatan Givati, 2014. "Legal Institutions and Social Values: Theory and Evidence from Plea Bargaining Regimes," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 867-893, December.
    12. Richard Adelstein & Thomas Miceli, 2001. "Toward a Comparative Economics of Plea Bargaining," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 47-67, January.
    13. SIDDHARTHA BANDYOPADHYAY & BRYAN C. McCANNON, 2015. "Prosecutorial Retention: Signaling by Trial," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 17(2), pages 219-256, April.
    14. James E. Prieger, 2005. "Estimation of a Simple Queuing System WithUnits-in-Service and Complete Data," Working Papers 37, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    15. Thomas J. Miceli, 2008. "Criminal Sentencing Guidelines And Judicial Discretion," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(2), pages 207-215, April.
    16. Kenneth Lowande & Andrew Proctor, 2020. "Bureaucratic Responsiveness to LGBT Americans," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(3), pages 664-681, July.
    17. Ash, Elliott & MacLeod, W. Bentley, 2021. "Reducing partisanship in judicial elections can improve judge quality: Evidence from U.S. state supreme courts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    18. Di Vita, Giuseppe, 2010. "Production of laws and delays in court decisions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 276-281, September.
    19. Eric Rasmusen & Manu Raghav & Mark Ramseyer, 2009. "Convictions versus Conviction Rates: The Prosecutor's Choice," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 11(1), pages 47-78.
    20. Lewis Davis & K. R. White, 2021. "Is justice blind? Evidence from federal corruption convictions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 186(1), pages 63-95, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:8:y:2012:i:3:p:579-618:n:9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.