Creat membership Creat membership
Sign in

Forgot password?

Confirm
  • Forgot password?
    Sign Up
  • Confirm
    Sign In
Creat membership Creat membership
Sign in

Forgot password?

Confirm
  • Forgot password?
    Sign Up
  • Confirm
    Sign In
Collection

toTop

If you have any feedback, Please follow the official account to submit feedback.

Turn on your phone and scan

home > search >

Author:
Bibas, S  


Journal:
HARVARD LAW REVIEW


Issue Date:
2004


Abstract(summary):

Plea-bargaining literature predicts that parties strike plea bargains in the shadow of expected trial outcomes. In other words, parties forecast the expected sentence after trial, discount it by the probability of acquittal, and offer some proportional discount. This oversimplified model ignores how structural distortions skew bargaining outcomes. Agency costs; attorney competence, compensation, and workloads; resources; sentencing and bail rules; and information deficits all skew bargaining. In addition, psychological biases and heuristics warp judgments: overconfidence, denial, discounting, risk preferences, loss aversion, framing, and anchoring all affect bargaining decisions. Skilled lawyers can partly counteract some of these problems but sometimes overcompensate. The oversimplified shadow-of-trial model of plea bargaining must thus be supplemented by a structural-psychological perspective. In this perspective, uncertainty, money, self-interest, and demographic variation greatly influence plea bargains. Some of these influences can be ameliorated, others are difficult to correct, but each casts light on how civil and criminal bargaining differ in important respects.


Page:
2463---2547


Similar Literature

Submit Feedback

This function is a member function, members do not limit the number of downloads