The Innocence Effect

Nearly all felony convictions—about 95 percent—follow guilty pleas, suggesting that plea offers are very attractive to defendants compared to trials. Some scholars argue that plea bargains are too attractive and should be curtailed because they facilitate the wrongful conviction of innocents. Others contend that plea bargains only benefit innocent defendants, providing an alternative to the risk of a harsher sentence at trial. Hence, even while heatedly disputing their desirability, both camps in the debate believe that plea bargains commonly lead innocents to plead guilty. This Article shows, however, that the belief that innocents routinely plead guilty is overstated. We provide varied empirical evidence for the hitherto neglected innocence effect, revealing that innocents are significantly less likely to accept plea offers that appear attractive to similarly situated guilty defendants. The Article further explores the psychological causes of the innocence effect and examines its implications for plea bargaining. Positively, we identify the striking cost of innocence, wherein innocents suffer harsher average sanctions than similarly situated guilty defendants. Yet our findings also show that the innocence effect directly causes an overrepresentation of the guilty among plea bargainers and an overrepresentation of the innocent among those who choose trial. In this way, the innocence effect beneficially reduces the rate of wrongful convictions—including accepted plea bargains—even when compared to a system that does not allow plea bargaining. Normatively, our analysis finds that both detractors and supporters of plea bargaining should reevaluate, if not completely reverse, their long-held positions to account for the causes and consequences of the innocence effect. The Article concludes by outlining two proposals for minimizing false convictions, better protecting the innocent, and improving the plea bargaining process altogether by accounting for the innocence effect

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW AND ECONOMICS

The academic world is wonderful. Like few other professionals, we can choose what we want to do and what questions we think are important, which in our line of work means choosing what topics we want to research. But what influences our choices? This paper examines what drives scholars to select Law and Economics (L&E) as a topic for research. It does so by implementing the methodology of many L&E papers - by assuming that regulation and incentives matter. Legal scholars face very different academic incentives in different parts of the world. In some countries, the academic standards for appointment, promotion and tenure encourage legal scholars to concentrate on L&E. In others, they strongly discourage such research. Thus, we should expect wide variation in the rate of participation of legal scholars in the L&E discourse across countries. On the other hand, economists are evaluated with similar yardsticks everywhere. Thus, participation of economists in the L&E discourse is likely to vary much less from one place to another. The hypothesis of this paper is that the academic incentives are a major factor in the level of participation in the L&E scholarship. This "incentives hypothesis" is presented and then examined empirically on data gathered from the list of authors in L&E journals and the list of participants in L&E conferences. The data generally supports the hypothesis. In the legal academia, the incentives to focus research on L&E topics are the strongest in Israel, they are weaker in North America and weakest in Europe. In fact, the data reveal that lawyers' authorship of L&E papers weighted by population is almost ten times higher in Israel than in North America; while in Europe it is almost ten times lower than in North America. By comparison, the weighted participation level of economists - who face relatively similar academic environments across countries - in L&E research is not significantly different across countries.Law and Economics, Legal Education, Comparative Law,

Screening, Plea Bargains and the Innocent Problem

Courts in common law countries reject plea-agreements only when the agreed upon sentence is seen as exceedingly lenient. This judicial intervention is designed to ensure that plea-bargaining does not undermine deterrence. Many legal scholars argue against this policy, claiming that courts should prohibit plea-bargaining all together. They argue that the plea-bargaining system increases the risk of wrongful convictions. Economists often criticize this judicial intervention as well, but for a different reason. Rather than advocating the abolition of plea-bargaining, many economists argue that the courts should accept all plea-agreements without review. They claim that plea-bargaining can help ensure an efficient use of prosecutorial resources and thus help maximize deterrence. In the paper, I will argue that a plea-bargaining system that includes judicial review is superior to both of these suggested alternatives. Moreover, I will show that the prohibition of exceedingly lenient sentences is justified, not because it ensures appropriate deterrence, but because it can reduce the risk of wrongful convictions. When the evidence against a certain defendant is weak, the prosecution is usually willing to offer him a lower sentence in plea-bargaining in order to ensure his conviction. Such a defendant would not accept an offer to plead guilty unless he receives a substantial concession in the agreement. Thus lenient plea-bargaining can indicate that the evidence against the defendant is weak. Given that weak evidence can indicate a higher probability of factual innocence, it is likely that the percentage of innocent defendants is relatively higher among defendants that are offered an exceptionally lenient plea-bargains. When courts prevent these types of agreements, they force the prosecutor either to go to trial or to dismiss the case. At the same time, the court would accept plea-bargains in strong cases because in these cases, prosecutors can achieve defendants\u27 agreements to settle even without offering them exceedingly lenient concessions. By hindering the prosecutor\u27s ability to agree to exceedingly lenient sentences, courts increase the cost of handling weak cases, without obstructing the prosecutor\u27s ability to settle stronger cases. This helps to reduce the risk of wrongful convictions by encouraging the prosecutor to pursue the cases of defendants that are more likely to be guilty and to dismiss the cases against defendants that more likely to be innocent

Screening, Plea Bargains and the Innocent Problem

Courts in common law countries reject plea-agreements only when the agreed upon sentence is seen as exceedingly lenient. This judicial intervention is designed to ensure that plea-bargaining does not undermine deterrence. Many legal scholars argue against this policy, claiming that courts should prohibit plea-bargaining all together. They argue that the plea-bargaining system increases the risk of wrongful convictions. Economists often criticize this judicial intervention as well, but for a different reason. Rather than advocating the abolition of plea-bargaining, many economists argue that the courts should accept all plea-agreements without review. They claim that plea-bargaining can help ensure an efficient use of prosecutorial resources and thus help maximize deterrence. In the paper, I will argue that a plea-bargaining system that includes judicial review is superior to both of these suggested alternatives. Moreover, I will show that the prohibition of exceedingly lenient sentences is justified, not because it ensures appropriate deterrence, but because it can reduce the risk of wrongful convictions. When the evidence against a certain defendant is weak, the prosecution is usually willing to offer him a lower sentence in plea-bargaining in order to ensure his conviction. Such a defendant would not accept an offer to plead guilty unless he receives a substantial concession in the agreement. Thus lenient plea-bargaining can indicate that the evidence against the defendant is weak. Given that weak evidence can indicate a higher probability of factual innocence, it is likely that the percentage of innocent defendants is relatively higher among defendants that are offered an exceptionally lenient plea-bargains. When courts prevent these types of agreements, they force the prosecutor either to go to trial or to dismiss the case. At the same time, the court would accept plea-bargains in strong cases because in these cases, prosecutors can achieve defendants\u27 agreements to settle even without offering them exceedingly lenient concessions. By hindering the prosecutor\u27s ability to agree to exceedingly lenient sentences, courts increase the cost of handling weak cases, without obstructing the prosecutor\u27s ability to settle stronger cases. This helps to reduce the risk of wrongful convictions by encouraging the prosecutor to pursue the cases of defendants that are more likely to be guilty and to dismiss the cases against defendants that more likely to be innocent

Quark-lepton complementarity model based predictions for θ23PMNS\theta_{23}^{PMNS} with neutrino mass hierarchy

After the successful investigation and confirmation of non zero $\theta_{13}^{PMNS}$ by various experiments, we are standing at a square where we still encounter a number of issues, which are to be settled. In this paper, we have extended our recent work towards a precise prediction of the $\theta_{23}^{PMNS}$ mixing angle, taking into account the neutrino mass hierarchy. We parameterize the non-trivial correlation between quark (CKM) and lepton (PMNS) mixing matrices in quark-lepton complementarity (QLC) model as $V_{c}= U_{CKM}. \psi. U_{PMNS}$, where $\psi$ is a diagonal phase matrix. Monte Carlo simulations are used to estimate the texture of $V_{c}$ and compare the results with the standard Tri-Bi-Maximal (TBM) and Bi-Maximal(BM) structures of neutrino mixing matrix. We have predicted the value of $\theta_{23}^{PMNS}$ for normal and inverted neutrino mass hierarchies. The value of $\theta_{23}^{PMNS}$ obtained for two cases are about $1.3\sigma$ away from each other, implying the better precision can give us a strong hint for the type of neutrino mass hierarchy.Comment: 3 pages, 3 figure