Sentencing discretion and burdens of proof

•Critics of jury sentencing cite the risk of “compromise verdicts”.•Any expected utility maximizer with sentencing discretion will effectively compromise.•Many countries assign fact finding and sentencing responsibility to the same party.•Dividing fact finding and sentencing responsibility can lessen compromise.•Welfare depends on deterrence and the cost of incorrect verdicts. In the US, judges typically retain sentencing discretion in criminal cases, but in some states this discretion is given to juries. One criticism of jury sentencing is that jurors will be tempted to issue “compromise verdicts,” where they return a guilty verdict but a light sentence when they are uncertain about the facts of a case. A simple expected utility model shows that any fact finder with sentencing discretion should engage in behavior that is observationally equivalent to a compromise verdict. Intuitively, the fact finder chooses a more lenient sentence than the punishment that fits the crime because he wants to mitigate the potential cost of a wrongful conviction; in turn, a lower cost of a wrongful conviction leads him to reduce his standard of proof. Although critics of jury sentencing intuit the risk of compromise, a bench trial poses the same risk for a judge. Alternatively, the jury trial format (jury verdict, judge sentence) can lessen the risk of compromise if juries are denied punishment information.