A Utilitarian Justification for Heightened Standards of Proof in Criminal Trials
Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, Vol. 167, No. 2, 2011
19 Pages Posted: 30 Jun 2009 Last revised: 7 Apr 2011
Date Written: June 29, 2009
Abstract
This paper contributes to the interpretation of the standard of proof in criminal trials in two ways. First, it provides a purely utilitarian explanation as to why there are asymmetric costs associated with false convictions and acquittals. It relies on the fact that noncriminals may engage in precautionary activities in order to avoid false convictions. Second, it shows that this difference in the costs associated with false-conviction and -acquittal rates is under certain circumstances sufficient to justify heightened standards of proofs.
Keywords: Standard of Proof, Judicial Error, Crime and Deterrence, Precautionary Activity
JEL Classification: K00, K14, K42
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Does Wrongful Conviction Lower Deterrence?
By Henrik Lando
-
Prevention of Crime and the Optimal Standard of Proof in Criminal Law
By Henrik Lando
-
The Optimum Enforcement of Laws and the Concept of Justice: A Positive Analysis
-
The Problematic Value of Mathematical Models of Evidence
By Ronald J. Allen and Michael S. Pardo
-
Punishment Despite Reasonable Doubt - A Public Goods Experiment with Uncertainty Over Contributions
By Kristoffel R. Grechenig, Andreas Nicklisch, ...
-
Punishment Despite Reasonable Doubt - A Public Goods Experiment with Uncertainty Over Contributions
By Kristoffel R. Grechenig, Andreas Nicklisch, ...