Convicting the Innocent: The Inferiority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts

نویسنده

  • Timothy Feddersen
چکیده

It is often suggested that requiring juries to reach a unanimous verdict reduces the probability of convicting an innocent defendant while increasing the probability of acquitting a guilty defendant. We construct a model that demonstrates how strategic voting by jurors undermines this basic intuition. We show that unanimity rule may lead to high probabilities of both kinds of errors and that the probability of convicting an innocent may actually increase with the size of the jury. Finally, we demonstrate that a wide variety of voting rules, including simple majority rule, lead to much lower probabilities of both kinds of errors.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Convicting the Innocent: The Inferiority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts under Strategic Voting

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive o...

متن کامل

Perspective Elections, information aggregation, and strategic voting

Elections have two distinct roles in society. First, they serve as a mechanism to decide policies when individuals disagree about appropriate actions. Second, they aggregate information dispersed in the population. This second role can be found even in situations where all individuals agree on the appropriate policies. The focus of this essay is on information aggregation in elections and on th...

متن کامل

Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California 91125 Strategic Voting in a Jury Trial with Plea Bargaining

We study the criminal court process focusing on the interaction between plea bargaining and jury trials. We model plea bargaining such that a prosecutor makes a takeit-or-leave-it offer and a defendant, who is either guilty or innocent, pleads either guilty or not guilty. If the defendant pleads not guilty, the case goes to a jury trial, which follows a strategic voting model. Plea bargaining p...

متن کامل

A Bayesian Model of Voting in Juries

We take a game-theoretic approach to the analysis of juries by modelling voting as a game of incomplete information. Rather than the usual assumption of two possible signals (one indicating guilt, the other innocence), we allow jurors to perceive a full spectrum of signals. Given any voting rule requiring a fixed fraction of votes to convict, we characterize the unique symmetric equilibrium of ...

متن کامل

Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts

Average accuracy of jury verdicts for a set of cases can be studied empirically and systematically even when the correct verdict cannot be known. The key is to obtain a second rating of the verdict, for example, the judge’s, as in the recent study of criminal cases in the United States by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). That study, like the famous Kalven-Zeisel study, showed only m...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 1996