Lesser-included offenses
The positions taken by prosecutors and defense lawyers on proposed jury instructions on lesser-included offenses provide evidence that juries do not follow the law strictly. This paper develops a simple model of expected utility to predict how jurors make their decisions. The model explains a styliz...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | International review of law and economics 2008-12, Vol.28 (4), p.239-245 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 245 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 239 |
| container_title | International review of law and economics |
| container_volume | 28 |
| creator | Orzach, Ram Spurr, Stephen J. |
| description | The positions taken by prosecutors and defense lawyers on proposed jury instructions on lesser-included offenses provide evidence that juries do not follow the law strictly. This paper develops a simple model of expected utility to predict how jurors make their decisions. The model explains a stylized fact that is inconsistent with the idea that juries always follow the law, namely why prosecutors often object to giving the jury the option of a lesser-included offense. We use the model to evaluate the law concerning jury instructions on primary and lesser-included offenses. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.irle.2008.07.010 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_37113626</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0144818808000409</els_id><sourcerecordid>37113626</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c518t-886acfbbe1741fbf1eda1e105eeb778882a317e5e78027e792a8a4514c3f41c03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkM1LAzEQxYMoWKt38SQevO06k2STFLxI8ZOCFz2HNDuLKdvdmrSF_vdmqXjwIB5mJgy_95g8xi4QSgRUN4syxJZKDmBK0CUgHLARGi0KJSbykI0ApSwMGnPMTlJaAIBSWo3Y-YxSoliEzrebmurLvmmoS5RO2VHj2kRn33PM3h_u36ZPxez18Xl6Nyt8hWZdGKOcb-ZzQi2xmTdItUNCqIjmWhtjuBOoqSJtgGvSE-6MkxVKLxqJHsSYXe99V7H_3FBa22VIntrWddRvkhUaUSiu_gGC0jipMnj1C1z0m9jlT1ierxSoQGSI7yEf-5QiNXYVw9LFnUWwQ6R2YYdI7RCpBW1zpFn0shdFWpH_URBRRl3ebK1w3OS2Gx6DUriQS-ZaDSsxsVxW9mO9zGa3ezPK6W4DRZt8oM5THSL5ta378NctX2JQlfM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>217431603</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Lesser-included offenses</title><source>RePEc</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Orzach, Ram ; Spurr, Stephen J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Orzach, Ram ; Spurr, Stephen J.</creatorcontrib><description>The positions taken by prosecutors and defense lawyers on proposed jury instructions on lesser-included offenses provide evidence that juries do not follow the law strictly. This paper develops a simple model of expected utility to predict how jurors make their decisions. The model explains a stylized fact that is inconsistent with the idea that juries always follow the law, namely why prosecutors often object to giving the jury the option of a lesser-included offense. We use the model to evaluate the law concerning jury instructions on primary and lesser-included offenses.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0144-8188</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-6394</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2008.07.010</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Crime ; Decision making ; Economic models ; Expected utility ; Instructions to juries ; Juries ; Law ; Legal theory ; Lesser-included offense ; Lesser-included offense Expected utility ; Penal codes ; Studies ; Utility theory</subject><ispartof>International review of law and economics, 2008-12, Vol.28 (4), p.239-245</ispartof><rights>2008 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Dec 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c518t-886acfbbe1741fbf1eda1e105eeb778882a317e5e78027e792a8a4514c3f41c03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c518t-886acfbbe1741fbf1eda1e105eeb778882a317e5e78027e792a8a4514c3f41c03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2008.07.010$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,4008,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeirlaec/v_3a28_3ay_3a2008_3ai_3a4_3ap_3a239-245.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Orzach, Ram</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spurr, Stephen J.</creatorcontrib><title>Lesser-included offenses</title><title>International review of law and economics</title><description>The positions taken by prosecutors and defense lawyers on proposed jury instructions on lesser-included offenses provide evidence that juries do not follow the law strictly. This paper develops a simple model of expected utility to predict how jurors make their decisions. The model explains a stylized fact that is inconsistent with the idea that juries always follow the law, namely why prosecutors often object to giving the jury the option of a lesser-included offense. We use the model to evaluate the law concerning jury instructions on primary and lesser-included offenses.</description><subject>Crime</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Expected utility</subject><subject>Instructions to juries</subject><subject>Juries</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Legal theory</subject><subject>Lesser-included offense</subject><subject>Lesser-included offense Expected utility</subject><subject>Penal codes</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Utility theory</subject><issn>0144-8188</issn><issn>1873-6394</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>X2L</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkM1LAzEQxYMoWKt38SQevO06k2STFLxI8ZOCFz2HNDuLKdvdmrSF_vdmqXjwIB5mJgy_95g8xi4QSgRUN4syxJZKDmBK0CUgHLARGi0KJSbykI0ApSwMGnPMTlJaAIBSWo3Y-YxSoliEzrebmurLvmmoS5RO2VHj2kRn33PM3h_u36ZPxez18Xl6Nyt8hWZdGKOcb-ZzQi2xmTdItUNCqIjmWhtjuBOoqSJtgGvSE-6MkxVKLxqJHsSYXe99V7H_3FBa22VIntrWddRvkhUaUSiu_gGC0jipMnj1C1z0m9jlT1ierxSoQGSI7yEf-5QiNXYVw9LFnUWwQ6R2YYdI7RCpBW1zpFn0shdFWpH_URBRRl3ebK1w3OS2Gx6DUriQS-ZaDSsxsVxW9mO9zGa3ezPK6W4DRZt8oM5THSL5ta378NctX2JQlfM</recordid><startdate>20081201</startdate><enddate>20081201</enddate><creator>Orzach, Ram</creator><creator>Spurr, Stephen J.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20081201</creationdate><title>Lesser-included offenses</title><author>Orzach, Ram ; Spurr, Stephen J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c518t-886acfbbe1741fbf1eda1e105eeb778882a317e5e78027e792a8a4514c3f41c03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Crime</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Expected utility</topic><topic>Instructions to juries</topic><topic>Juries</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Legal theory</topic><topic>Lesser-included offense</topic><topic>Lesser-included offense Expected utility</topic><topic>Penal codes</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Utility theory</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Orzach, Ram</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spurr, Stephen J.</creatorcontrib><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>International review of law and economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Orzach, Ram</au><au>Spurr, Stephen J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Lesser-included offenses</atitle><jtitle>International review of law and economics</jtitle><date>2008-12-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>239</spage><epage>245</epage><pages>239-245</pages><issn>0144-8188</issn><eissn>1873-6394</eissn><abstract>The positions taken by prosecutors and defense lawyers on proposed jury instructions on lesser-included offenses provide evidence that juries do not follow the law strictly. This paper develops a simple model of expected utility to predict how jurors make their decisions. The model explains a stylized fact that is inconsistent with the idea that juries always follow the law, namely why prosecutors often object to giving the jury the option of a lesser-included offense. We use the model to evaluate the law concerning jury instructions on primary and lesser-included offenses.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.1016/j.irle.2008.07.010</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0144-8188 |
| ispartof | International review of law and economics, 2008-12, Vol.28 (4), p.239-245 |
| issn | 0144-8188 1873-6394 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_37113626 |
| source | RePEc; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
| subjects | Crime Decision making Economic models Expected utility Instructions to juries Juries Law Legal theory Lesser-included offense Lesser-included offense Expected utility Penal codes Studies Utility theory |
| title | Lesser-included offenses |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T17%3A53%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Lesser-included%20offenses&rft.jtitle=International%20review%20of%20law%20and%20economics&rft.au=Orzach,%20Ram&rft.date=2008-12-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=239&rft.epage=245&rft.pages=239-245&rft.issn=0144-8188&rft.eissn=1873-6394&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.irle.2008.07.010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E37113626%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=217431603&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0144818808000409&rfr_iscdi=true |