Conjunction and Aggregation

54 Pages Posted: 11 Dec 2000

See all articles by Saul Levmore

Saul Levmore

University of Chicago Law School

Date Written: December 2000

Abstract

This Article begins with the puzzle of why law does not embrace the "product rule"; a mathematically-inclined judge or jury that thought a defendant .6 likely to have been negligent and .7 likely to have caused plaintiff's harm might conclude that plaintiff had failed to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard. Following some discussion of a number of reactions to this puzzle, the Article advances the idea that the process of aggregating multiple jurors' assessments overlooks valuable information. First, following the Condorcet Jury Theorem, agreement among jurors might raise our level of confidence beyond what the jurors themselves report. Second, a supermajority's mean or median voter is likely to have a different assessment from that gained from the marginal juror. As such, a supermajority (or unanimity) rule may take the place of the product rule where there are multiple requirements for liability or guilt. An attempt to extract this inframarginal information more directly would likely generate strategic behavior problems. The analysis is extended to panels of judges, for whom outcome voting may (somewhat similarly) substitute for the product rule.

Suggested Citation

Levmore, Saul, Conjunction and Aggregation (December 2000). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=252830 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.252830

Saul Levmore (Contact Author)

University of Chicago Law School ( email )

1111 E. 60th St.
Chicago, IL 60637
United States
773-702-9590 (Phone)
773-702-0730 (Fax)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
171
Abstract Views
1,751
Rank
315,815
PlumX Metrics