IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/r/kap/pubcho/v155y2013i3p395-411.html
   My bibliography  Save this item

Better that ten guilty persons escape: punishment costs explain the standard of evidence

Citations

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


Cited by:

  1. Avdasheva, Svetlana (Авдашева, Светлана) & Shastitko, Andrei (Шаститко, Андрей), 2015. "Alleged Infringement: The Time of Announcement Does Matter [Предмет Обвинения: Время Объявления Имеет Значение]," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 1, pages 72-91, February.
  2. Murat C Mungan & Marie Obidzinski & Yves Oytana, 2023. "Accuracy and Preferences for Legal Error," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 25(1), pages 190-227.
  3. Feess, Eberhard & Schramm, Markus & Wohlschlegel, Ansgar, 2014. "The Impact of Fine Size and Uncertainty on Punishment and Deterrence: Evidence from the Laboratory," MPRA Paper 59463, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  4. Francesco Parisi & Ram Singh, 2024. "Decisiveness, Correctness and Accuracy in Criminal Adjudication," Working papers 350, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
  5. Rizzolli, Matteo & Tremewan, James, 2018. "Hard labor in the lab: Deterrence, non-monetary sanctions, and severe procedures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 107-121.
  6. Marie Obidzinski & Yves Oytana, 2020. "Presumption of Innocence and Deterrence," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 176(2), pages 377-412.
  7. Marie Obidzinski & Yves Oytana, 2017. "How does the probability of wrongful conviction affect the standard of proof?," Working Papers hal-01462844, HAL.
  8. Mungan, Murat C., 2014. "A behavioral justification for escalating punishment schemes," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 189-197.
  9. Libor Dusek, 2015. "The Effects of a Simpler Criminal Procedure on Criminal Case Outcomes: Evidence from Czech District-level Data," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp528, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
  10. 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.
  11. Markussen, Thomas & Putterman, Louis & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2016. "Judicial error and cooperation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 372-388.
  12. Alice Guerra & Maria Maraki & Baptiste Massenot & Christian Thöni, 2023. "Deterrence, settlement, and litigation under adversarial versus inquisitorial systems," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(3), pages 331-356, September.
  13. Matteo Rizzolli, 2016. "Adjudication: Type-I and Type-II Errors," CERBE Working Papers wpC15, CERBE Center for Relationship Banking and Economics.
  14. 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.
  15. Antonio Nicita & Matteo Rizzolli, 2014. "In Dubio Pro Reo. Behavioral Explanations of Pro-defendant Bias in Procedures," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 60(3), pages 554-580.
  16. Mungan Murat C., 2018. "Mere Preparation," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 1-15, July.
  17. Bertrand Chopard & Edwige Marion & Ludivine Roussey, 2014. "Does the Appeals Process Lower the Occurrence of Legal Errors?," EconomiX Working Papers 2014-43, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
  18. Mungan, Murat C., 2015. "Wrongful convictions and the punishment of attempts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 79-87.
  19. Lucia Marchegiani & Tommaso Reggiani & Matteo Rizzolli, 2013. "Severity vs. Leniency Bias in Performance Appraisal: Experimental evidence," BEMPS - Bozen Economics & Management Paper Series BEMPS01, Faculty of Economics and Management at the Free University of Bozen.
  20. Mungan, Murat C. & Samuel, Andrew, 2019. "Mimicking, errors, and the optimal standard of proof," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 18-21.
  21. Jana Zausinová & Martin Zoričak & Marcel Vološin & Vladimír Gazda, 2020. "Aspects of complexity in citizen–bureaucrat corruption: an agent-based simulation model," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 15(2), pages 527-552, April.
  22. Mungan Murat C., 2020. "The Optimal Standard of Proof with Adjudication Avoidance," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 1-7, March.
  23. Chopard Bertrand & Fain Edwige & Roussey Ludivine, 2018. "Does the Appeals Process Reduce the Occurrence of Legal Errors?," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 1-18, July.
  24. Lucia Pellegrina & Giorgio Maio & Donato Masciandaro & Margherita Saraceno, 2023. "Are Bankers “Crying Wolf”? Type I, Type II Errors and Deterrence in Anti-Money Laundering: The Italian Case," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 9(2), pages 587-615, July.
  25. Barbara Luppi & Francesco Parisi, 2013. "Jury Size and the Hung-Jury Paradox," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(2), pages 399-422.
  26. Fluet, Claude & Mungan, Murat C., 2022. "Laws and norms with (un)observable actions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
  27. Avdasheva, Svetlana & Kryuchkova, Polina, 2015. "The ‘reactive’ model of antitrust enforcement: When private interests dictate enforcement actions – The Russian case," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 200-208.
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.