IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/gpprii/v27y2002i4p602-608.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When is the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard Optimal?

Author

Listed:
  • Henrik Lando

    (Copenhagen Business School)

Abstract

This paper defines the preponderance of the evidence standard and establishes it as a benchmark, optimal under certain idealized conditions. The main conditions are: only efficiency matters (not fairness); people are risk–neutral; sanctions are socially cost–free; and a suit may be brought even if no violation of the law has occurred. Concerning the definition of preponderance of the evidence, a distinction is made between standards based on probability of guilt and standards based on the evidence. It is stressed that the latter does not include ex ante information concerning the offender’s type, and should hence not be associated with a probability of guilt in a Bayesian sense. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance (2002) 27, 602–608. doi:10.1111/1468-0440.00195

Suggested Citation

  • Henrik Lando, 2002. "When is the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard Optimal?," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 27(4), pages 602-608, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:gpprii:v:27:y:2002:i:4:p:602-608
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/gpp/journal/v27/n4/pdf/2500195a.pdf
    File Function: Link to full text PDF
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/gpp/journal/v27/n4/full/2500195a.html
    File Function: Link to full text HTML
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Dominique Demougin & Claude Fluet, 2008. "Rules of proof, courts, and incentives," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(1), pages 20-40, March.
    2. Louis Kaplow, 2017. "Optimal Multistage Adjudication," NBER Working Papers 23364, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Edwige Fain, 2017. "Standard of proof and volume of litigation: A comparative perspective," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(4), pages 2434-2445.
    4. Louis Kaplow, 2012. "On the Optimal Burden of Proof," NBER Working Papers 17765, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Lucia Dalla Pellegrina & Giorgio Di Maio & Donato Masciandaro & Margherita Saraceno, 2020. "Are Bankers "Crying Wolf"? The Risk-Based Approach to Money-Laundering Regulation and its Effects," Working Papers 444, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2021.
    6. Louis Kaplow, 2017. "Optimal Multistage Adjudication," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(4), pages 613-652.
    7. Lando, Henrik & Mungan, Murat C., 2018. "The effect of type-1 error on deterrence," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-8.
    8. Louis Kaplow, 2011. "On the Optimal Burden of Proof," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(6), pages 1104-1140.
    9. Louis Kaplow, 2011. "Optimal Proof Burdens, Deterrence, and the Chilling of Desirable Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 277-280, May.
    10. Dominique Demougin & Claude Fluet, 2005. "Deterrence versus Judicial Error: A Comparative View of Standards of Proof," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 161(2), pages 193-206, June.
    11. Shmuel Leshem & Geoffrey P. Miller, 2009. "All-or-Nothing versus Proportionate Damages," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 345-382, June.
    12. Matteo Rizzolli, 2016. "Adjudication: Type-I and Type-II Errors," CERBE Working Papers wpC15, CERBE Center for Relationship Banking and Economics.
    13. Drugov, Mikhail & Troya Martinez, Marta, 2012. "Vague Lies: How to Advise Consumers When They Complain," CEPR Discussion Papers 9201, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pal:gpprii:v:27:y:2002:i:4:p:602-608. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.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.