IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bejtec/v15y2015i2p277-312n8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Judicial Torture as a Screening Device

Author

Listed:
  • Chen Kong-Pin

    (Research Center for Humanities and Social Sciences, Academia Sinica, No. 128, Academia Road, Nangang, Taipei 11529, Taiwan)

  • Tsai Tsung-Sheng

    (Department of Economics, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei 10617, Taiwan)

Abstract

Judicial torture to extract information or to elicit a confession was a common practice in pre-modern societies, both in the east and the west. This paper proposes a positive theory for judicial torture. It is shown that torture reflects the magistrate’s attempt to balance type I and type II errors in the decision-making, by forcing the guilty to confess with a higher probability than the innocent, and thereby decreases the type I error at the cost of the type II error. Moreover, there is a non-monotonic relationship between the superiority of torture and the informativeness of investigation: when investigation is relatively uninformative, an improvement in technology used in the investigation actually lends an advantage to torture so that torture is even more attractive to the magistrates; however, when technological progress reaches a certain threshold, the advantage of torture is weakened, so that a judicial system based on torture becomes inferior to one based on evidence. This result can explain the historical development of the judicial system.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen Kong-Pin & Tsai Tsung-Sheng, 2015. "Judicial Torture as a Screening Device," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 15(2), pages 277-312, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bejtec:v:15:y:2015:i:2:p:277-312:n:8
    DOI: 10.1515/bejte-2014-0023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/bejte-2014-0023
    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/bejte-2014-0023?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. Mialon, Hugo M. & Mialon, Sue H. & Stinchcombe, Maxwell B., 2012. "Torture in counterterrorism: Agency incentives and slippery slopes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 33-41.
    2. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1985. "A Bargaining Model with Incomplete Information about Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(5), pages 1151-1172, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mialon, Hugo M. & Mialon, Sue H. & Stinchcombe, Maxwell B., 2012. "Torture in counterterrorism: Agency incentives and slippery slopes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 33-41.

    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. Eric T. Anderson, 2002. "Sharing the Wealth: When Should Firms Treat Customers as Partners?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 955-971, August.
    2. Anderhub, Vital & Guth, Werner & Marchand, Nadege, 2004. "Early or late conflict settlement in a variety of games - An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 177-194, April.
    3. Arnold, Markus C. & Gillenkirch, Robert M., 2015. "Using negotiated budgets for planning and performance evaluation: An experimental study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1-16.
    4. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    5. Waldman, Michael, 1996. "Asymmetric learning and the wage/productivity relationship," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 419-429, December.
    6. Luis Corchón & Matthias Dahm, 2010. "Foundations for contest success functions," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 43(1), pages 81-98, April.
    7. Marina Bánnikova & José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez, 2022. "The Unanimity Rule under a Two-Agent Fixed Sequential Order Voting," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-8, November.
    8. Binmore, Ken & Osborne, Martin J. & Rubinstein, Ariel, 1992. "Noncooperative models of bargaining," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 7, pages 179-225, Elsevier.
    9. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo & Alessandro Nuvolari, 2019. "Institutions are neither autistic maximizers nor flocks of birds: self-organization, power and learning in human organizations," Chapters, in: Francesca Gagliardi & David Gindis (ed.), Institutions and Evolution of Capitalism, chapter 13, pages 194-213, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Tsoy, Anton, 2018. "Alternating-offer bargaining with the global games information structure," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(2), May.
    11. Akin, Zafer, 2009. "Imperfect information processing in sequential bargaining games with present biased preferences," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 642-650, August.
    12. Huiye Ma & Nicole Ronald & Theo Arentze & Harry Timmermans, 2013. "Negotiating on location, timing, duration, and participant in agent-mediated joint activity-travel scheduling," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 427-451, October.
    13. Kjell Hausken, 1997. "Game-theoretic and Behavioral Negotiation Theory," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 6(6), pages 511-528, December.
    14. Ruud Gerards & Joan Muysken & Riccardo Welters, 2014. "Active Labour Market Policy by a Profit-Maximizing Firm," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 52(1), pages 136-157, March.
    15. A. Caparrós & J.-C. Péreau & T. Tazdaït, 2004. "North-South Climate Change Negotiations: A Sequential Game with Asymmetric Information," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 455-480, February.
    16. Andersson, Ola, 2008. "On the role of patience in collusive Bertrand duopolies," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 60-63, July.
    17. Keisuke Iida, 1993. "When and How Do Domestic Constraints Matter?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(3), pages 403-426, September.
    18. Oliver Kirchkamp & Ulrike Vollstädt, 2012. "Bargaining with Two-Person-Groups - On the Insignificance of the Patient Partner," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-043, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    19. Daughety, Andrew F. & Reinganum, Jennifer F., 1994. "Settlement negotiations with two-sided asymmetric information: Model duality, information distribution, and efficiency," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 283-298, September.
    20. Starkov, Egor, 2023. "Only time will tell: Credible dynamic signaling," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    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:bejtec:v:15:y:2015:i:2:p:277-312:n:8. 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.