Proof beyond a reasonable doubt: Laboratory evidence
We investigate how third-party punishers and potential violators decide under evidentiary uncertainty in a take game. In line with the legal requirement and in contrast to economic models, neither the sanction nor the harm level affects the punishment probability, but the quality of evidence does have an impact. Potential violators' decisions are strongly influenced by the expected punishment probability but not by the level of the sanction.
|Date of creation:||2015|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: +49 211 81-13820|
Phone: +49 211 81-15494
Fax: +49 211 81-15499
Web page: http://www.dice.hhu.de/en.html
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- 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.
- Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
- James Andreoni, 1991. "Reasonable Doubt and the Optimal Magnitude of Fines: Should the Penalty Fit the Crime?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 22(3), pages 385-395, Autumn.
- Andreoni, J., 1989. "Reasonable Doubt And The Optimal Magnitude Of Fines: Should The Penalty Fit The Crime," Working papers 8908, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.