Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1831552
 


 



Bargaining with Double Jeopardy


Saul Levmore


University of Chicago Law School

Ariel Porat


Tel Aviv University; University of Chicago - Law School

May 4, 2011

Journal of Legal Studies, 2011
U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 553

Abstract:     
Virtually every legal system specifies a variety of burdens of proof for different kinds of claims, and then secures each specification with another, nominally unrelated rule pertaining to relitigation. In criminal law, where a prosecutor might be required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor is prevented from repeatedly drawing from the urn, as it were, by the familiar and nearly universal rule of double jeopardy. We suggest that if law were to weaken the protection, or more likely to permit the defendant to waive the double jeopardy protection, both private and social benefits might follow. The benefits derive from the notion that with a simple double jeopardy rule, the prosecutor – like most people who take a test knowing that there is no opportunity for retesting – will overinvest in preparation. This starting point also illuminates relitigation, or retesting, in other areas, far from criminal law. Thus, deficit spending by a legislature can be understood as a product of a system in which spending proposals that are rebuffed can be pushed forward again, while those that pass are often irreversible. Our focus is on the idea that a prosecutor might offer defendants the option of waiving their double jeopardy protection, in return for a reduction in prosecutorial investment in the “first” trial and perhaps other benefits. In response, innocent defendants might be more likely to accept the prosecutor’s offer, in which case there will be socially beneficial sorting of criminal defendants.

Keywords: waiving double jeopardy protection; waiving constitutional rights; accused rights and privileges; plea bargains; prosecution powers and incentives; relitigation; retesting; burden of proof; sorting of criminal defendants.

Accepted Paper Series





Not Available For Download

Date posted: May 6, 2011  

Suggested Citation

Levmore, Saul and Porat, Ariel, Bargaining with Double Jeopardy (May 4, 2011). Journal of Legal Studies, 2011; U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 553. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1831552

Contact Information

Saul Levmore
University of Chicago Law School ( email )
1111 E. 60th St.
Chicago, IL 60637
United States
773-702-9590 (Phone)
773-702-0730 (Fax)
Ariel Porat (Contact Author)
Tel Aviv University ( email )
Ramat Aviv
Tel Aviv 69978, IL
Israel
972-3-6408283 (Phone)
972-3-6407260 (Fax)
HOME PAGE: http://www.law.tau.ac.il/Heb/?CategoryID=357&ArticleID=388
University of Chicago - Law School ( email )
1111 E. 60th St.
Chicago, IL 60637
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 503

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.375 seconds