IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/doi10.1086-684686.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reducing False Guilty Pleas and Wrongful Convictions through Exoneree Compensation

Author

Listed:
  • Murat C. Mungan
  • Jonathan Klick

Abstract

A great concern with plea bargains is that they may induce innocent individuals to plead guilty to crimes they have not committed. In this article, we identify schemes that reduce the number of innocent pleas without affecting guilty individuals' plea-bargaining incentives. Large compensations for exonerees reduce expected costs associated with wrongful determinations of guilt in trial and thereby reduce the number of innocent pleas. Any distortion in guilty individuals' incentives to take plea bargains caused by these compensations can be offset by a small increase in the discounts offered for pleading guilty. Although there are many statutory-reform proposals for increasing exoneree compensation, no one has yet noted this desirable separating effect of compensations. We argue that such reforms are likely to achieve this result without causing losses in deterrence.

Suggested Citation

  • Murat C. Mungan & Jonathan Klick, 2016. "Reducing False Guilty Pleas and Wrongful Convictions through Exoneree Compensation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(1), pages 173-189.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/684686
    DOI: 10.1086/684686
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/684686
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/684686
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/684686?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. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1988. "Plea Bargaining and Prosecutorial Discretion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(4), pages 713-728, September.
    2. Vincy Fon & Hans-Bernd Schäfer, 2007. "State Liability for Wrongful Conviction: Incentive Effects on Crime Levels," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(2), pages 269-284, June.
    3. Henrik Lando, 2006. "Does Wrongful Conviction Lower Deterrence?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(2), pages 327-337, June.
    4. Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 2016. "Informal Sanctions on Prosecutors and Defendants and the Disposition of Criminal Cases," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 359-394.
    5. Nuno Garoupa & Matteo Rizzolli, 2012. "Wrongful Convictions Do Lower Deterrence," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 168(2), pages 224-231, June.
    6. Yehonatan Givati, 2014. "Legal Institutions and Social Values: Theory and Evidence from Plea Bargaining Regimes," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 867-893, December.
    7. Grossman, Gene M & Katz, Michael L, 1983. "Plea Bargaining and Social Welfare," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 749-757, September.
    8. Bar-Gill, Oren & Gazal Ayal, Oren, 2006. "Plea Bargains Only for the Guilty," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(1), pages 353-364, April.
    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. Ajit Mishra & Andrew Samuel, 2018. "Law Enforcement And Wrongful Arrests With Endogenously (In)Competent Officers," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(2), pages 1417-1436, April.

    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. David Bjerk, 2021. "Socially Optimal Plea Bargaining With Costly Trials And Bayesian Juries," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(1), pages 263-279, January.
    2. Orzach, Ram & Spurr, Stephen J., 2008. "Lesser-included offenses," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 239-245, December.
    3. Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 2016. "Selecting among Acquitted Defendants: Procedural Choice versus Selective Compensation," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(1), pages 113-133, March.
    4. Matteo Rizzolli & Luca Stanca, 2012. "Judicial Errors and Crime Deterrence: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(2), pages 311-338.
    5. Mongrain, Steeve & Roberts, Joanne, 2009. "Plea bargaining with budgetary constraints," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 8-12, March.
    6. Bryan C. McCannon & Joylynn Pruitt, 2018. "Taking on the boss: Informative contests in prosecutor elections," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 20(5), pages 657-671, October.
    7. Berg, Nathan & Kim, Jeong-Yoo, 2018. "Plea bargaining with multiple defendants and its deterrence effect," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 58-70.
    8. Paolini, Gabriele, 2023. "The administratization of criminal convictions worldwide: History, extent, and consequences," ILE Working Paper Series 74, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.
    9. Alexander Lundberg, 2024. "Do prosecutors induce the innocent to plead guilty?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(2), pages 650-674, April.
    10. Motta, Massimo & Polo, Michele, 2003. "Leniency programs and cartel prosecution," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 347-379, March.
    11. Jeong-Yoo Kim, 2010. "Credible plea bargaining," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 279-293, June.
    12. Lewis, Tracy R & Poitevin, Michel, 1997. "Disclosure of Information in Regulatory Proceedings," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 50-73, April.
    13. Boari, Nicola & Fiorentini, Gianluca, 2001. "An economic analysis of plea bargaining: the incentives of the parties in a mixed penal system," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 213-231, June.
    14. Philippe Delacote & Lydie Ancelot, 2009. "Prosecutor and lawyers in plea bargaining with complete information," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(3), pages 1925-1932.
    15. Konstantinos Ioannidis & Theo Offerman & Randolph Sloof, 2022. "Lie Detection: A Strategic Analysis of the Verifiability Approach," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 659-705.
    16. Doménech, Gabriel & Puchades, Miguel, 2015. "Compensating acquitted pre-trial detainees," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 167-177.
    17. Bryan C. McCannon, 2024. "Alaska's ban on sentence bargaining," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 42(1), pages 110-119, January.
    18. Brishti Guha, 2024. "Plea bargaining when juror effort is costly," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 78(3), pages 945-977, November.
    19. Richard Boylan & Cheryl Xiaoning Long, 2000. "Size, Monitoring and Plea Rate: An Examination of United States Attorneys," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0089, Econometric Society.
    20. Obidzinski, Marie & Oytana, Yves, 2019. "Identity errors and the standard of proof," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 73-80.

    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:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/684686. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE .

    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.