Advertisement

Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 101–112 | Cite as

Decision theory, reasonable doubt, and the utility of erroneous acquittals

  • Terry Connolly
Articles

Abstract

A criminal-trial juror votes to convict or acquit a defendant in the knowledge that the vote may be in error: False convictions and false acquittals are unavoidable in human fact-finding systems. We show here that rigorous consistency relationships exist between the juror's assessments of the relative desirability of the four possible trial outcomes and his or her threshold level of “reasonable doubt.” However, numerical values for “reasonable doubt” commonly obtained by direct questioning are significantly at variance with those obtained indirectly by computation from evaluations of the four possible outcomes. The disparity is, we argue, no mere methodological detail, but a potentially fundamental substantive issue which has historically been masked by the vagueness of verbal expressions of probability and utility.

Keywords

Social Psychology Threshold Level Trial Outcome Decision Theory Consistency Relationship 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole americaine.Econometrica, 21, 503–546.Google Scholar
  2. Behn, R. D., & Vaupel, J. W. (1982).Quick analysis for busy decision makers. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  3. Beyth-Marom, R. (1982). How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expressions.Journal of Forecasting, 1, 257–269.Google Scholar
  4. Bryant, G. D., & Norman, G. R. (1980). Expression of probability with words and numbers.New England Journal of Medicine, 302, 411.Google Scholar
  5. Champaign, A., & Nagel, S. (1982). The psychology of judging. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.),The psychology of the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Coombs, C. H., Dawes, R. M., & Tversky, A. (1970).Mathematical psychology: An elementary introduction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Cullison, A. (1971). The model of rules and the logic of decision. In S. Nagel (Ed):Modeling the criminal justice system. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Dane, F. C. (1985). In search of reasonable doubt: A systematic examination of selected quantification approaches.Law and Human Behavior, 9, 141–158.Google Scholar
  9. Fortescue, J. (1969).A learned communication on the laws of England (reprint of 1567 ed.). New York: W. J. Johnson.Google Scholar
  10. Fried, M., Kaplan, K. J., & Klein, K. W. (1975). Juror selection: An analysis of voir dire. In R. J. Simon (Ed.),The jury system in America: A critical overview. Beverley Hills, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Grofman, B. (1981). Mathematical models of juror and jury decision-making: The state of the art. In B. D. Sales (Ed.),The trial process. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  12. Hale, M. (1972).Pleas of the Crown (reprint of 1678 ed.). Oxford: Professional Books.Google Scholar
  13. Hogarth, R. M. (1980).Judgement and Choice. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Iversen, G. R. (1971). Operationalizing the concept of probability in legal-social science research.Law and Society Review, 5, 331–333.Google Scholar
  15. Kaplan, J. (1968). Decision theory and the factfinding process.Stanford Law Review, 20, 1065–1092.Google Scholar
  16. Lichtenstein, S., & Newman, J. R. (1967). Empirical scaling of common verbal phrases associated with numerical probability.Psychonomic Science, 10, 563–564.Google Scholar
  17. Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957).Games and decisions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. McCormick, C. (1972).Handbook of the law of evidence, 2nd edition. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. MacCrimmon, K. R. (1967). Descriptive and normative implications of the decision theory postulates. In K. Borch (Ed.),Risk and uncertainty. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Milanich, P. G. (1981). Decision theory and standards of proof.Law and Human Behavior, 5, 87–96.Google Scholar
  21. Nagel, S. (1979). Bringing the values of jurors in line with the law.Judicature, 63, 189–195.Google Scholar
  22. Nagel, S., Lamm, D., & Neef, M. (1981). Decision theory and juror decision-making. In B. D. Sales (Ed.),The Trial Process, New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  23. Raiffa, H. (1968).Decision analysis. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  24. Simon, R. J., & Mahan, L. (1971). Quantifying burdens of proof: A view from the bench, the jury, and the classroom.Law and Society Review, 5, 319–330.Google Scholar
  25. Tribe, L. H. (1971). Trial by mathematics: Precision and ritual in the legal process.Harvard Law Review, 84, 1329–1393.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terry Connolly
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Business and Public AdministrationUniversity of ArizonaTucson

Personalised recommendations