IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v47y2001i7p931-948.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Reliability of Verdicts

Author

Listed:
  • Amir Klausner

    (22 Burla Street, 93714 Jerusalem, Israel)

  • Moshe Pollak

    (Department of Statistics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, 91905 Jerusalem, Israel)

Abstract

We consider the problem of evaluating the reliability of a verdict given by a panel of judges. Given no information other than the number of panelists for and against, we address the question of when is a verdict that was obtained by a majority of k 1 vs. j 1 more or less reliable than one reached by k 2 vs. j 2 . We define criteria and investigate which verdicts are comparable and which are not. Consequences of this study may have bearing on choice of panel size and decision rule for decision-making bodies, such as courts, juries, committees, and boards. As implied by the above, our perspective is a posterior view of reliability, though it also entails prior concern regarding how the reliability of a verdict will be perceived after being delivered. As an example, we apply our results to comparing the reliability of different verdicts handed down by the Supreme Court of the State of Israel and assessing the option of expanding a hearing on a case from a bench of three judges to a larger panel.

Suggested Citation

  • Amir Klausner & Moshe Pollak, 2001. "Comparative Reliability of Verdicts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(7), pages 931-948, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:47:y:2001:i:7:p:931-948
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.47.7.931.9801
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.7.931.9801
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.47.7.931.9801?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Alpern, Steve & Chen, Bo, 2017. "The importance of voting order for jury decisions by sequential majority voting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 1072-1081.
    2. Roland Kirstein, "undated". "The Condorcet Jury-Theorem with Two Independent Error-Probabilities," German Working Papers in Law and Economics 2006-1-1154, Berkeley Electronic Press.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:47:y:2001:i:7:p:931-948. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.