Bounding reasonable doubt: implications for plea bargaining

Yacov Tsur*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Scopus citations

Abstract

A bound for reasonable doubt is offered based on the cost of type I and type II errors. The bound increases with the punishment, hence its use as a conviction threshold may leave too many offenders of severe crimes at large. Plea bargaining addresses this limitation but introduces strategic interaction between concerned parties. Considering strategic interaction between defendants and judge/jury, it is shown that to any plea offer there corresponds a unique equilibrium. Moreover, all equilibria share the same conviction threshold, given by the reasonable doubt bound. The latter property ensures that the plea bargaining procedure is consistent with the ‘equality before the law’ principle. The former property (that to any plea offer there corresponds a unique equilibrium) bears implications for the design of plea bargain schemes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)197-216
Number of pages20
JournalEuropean Journal of Law and Economics
Volume44
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Oct 2017

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2016, Springer Science+Business Media New York.

Keywords

  • Conviction threshold
  • Perfect Bayesian equilibrium
  • Plea bargaining
  • Reasonable doubt

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Bounding reasonable doubt: implications for plea bargaining'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this