z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Bargaining with Double Jeopardy
Author(s) -
Saul Levmore,
Ariel Porat
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
the journal of legal studies
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.251
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1537-5366
pISSN - 0047-2530
DOI - 10.1086/660840
Subject(s) - double jeopardy , anticipation (artificial intelligence) , investment (military) , legislature , economics , test (biology) , double standard , law , law and economics , business , political science , politics , paleontology , artificial intelligence , computer science , biology
Virtually every burden of proof is influenced by a rule regarding relitigation. In criminal law, the prosecutor is prevented from repeatedly drawing from the urn, as it were, by the double-jeopardy rule, which reinforces the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. We suggest that if law were to permit defendants to waive double-jeopardy protection, private and social benefits might follow. The benefits derive from the likelihood that prosecutors—like most people who can take a test but once—overinvest in preparation. Somewhat similarly, though far afield, deficit spending by a legislature might be linked to the fact that spending proposals that are rebuffed can be retested or revisited. We contemplate offering defendants the option of waiving their double-jeopardy protection in anticipation of reduced prosecutorial investment. Innocent defendants might then be more likely to waive, in which case there will be socially beneficial sorting of defendants.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom