The Role of Probability of Detection in Judgments of Punishment

IF 3 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW Journal of Legal Analysis Pub Date : 2009-08-28 DOI:10.1093/JLA/1.2.553
J. Baron, Ilana Ritov
{"title":"The Role of Probability of Detection in Judgments of Punishment","authors":"J. Baron, Ilana Ritov","doi":"10.1093/JLA/1.2.553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In nine experiments — one a questionnaire given to Israeli judges, the rest on the World Wide Web — we examined the effect of probability of detection of an offense on judgments of punishment. When cases differing in probability were separated, we found almost no evidence for attention to probability (as found previously by others). When cases were presented next to each other, however, a substantial minority of subjects took probability into account. Attention to probability was increased in one study by a probe manipulation concerning deterrent effects. We found inconsistent effects of identifying the perpetrator, or of asking subjects to consider policies versus individuals. Some subjects thought that it was unfair to consider probability, but more subjects thought that probability was relevant because of the need for deterrence. We suggest that the failure to consider probability is to some extent an example of the “isolation effect,” in which people do not think much about secondary effects, rather than entirely a result of ideological commitment to a “just desserts” view of punishment. “To enable the value of the punishment to outweigh that of the profit of the offense, it must be increased, in point of magnitude, in proportion as it falls short in point of certainty.” (Bentham, 1948/1843, Ch. 14, section XVIII).","PeriodicalId":45189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Analysis","volume":"2 1","pages":"553-590"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JLA/1.2.553","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

Abstract

In nine experiments — one a questionnaire given to Israeli judges, the rest on the World Wide Web — we examined the effect of probability of detection of an offense on judgments of punishment. When cases differing in probability were separated, we found almost no evidence for attention to probability (as found previously by others). When cases were presented next to each other, however, a substantial minority of subjects took probability into account. Attention to probability was increased in one study by a probe manipulation concerning deterrent effects. We found inconsistent effects of identifying the perpetrator, or of asking subjects to consider policies versus individuals. Some subjects thought that it was unfair to consider probability, but more subjects thought that probability was relevant because of the need for deterrence. We suggest that the failure to consider probability is to some extent an example of the “isolation effect,” in which people do not think much about secondary effects, rather than entirely a result of ideological commitment to a “just desserts” view of punishment. “To enable the value of the punishment to outweigh that of the profit of the offense, it must be increased, in point of magnitude, in proportion as it falls short in point of certainty.” (Bentham, 1948/1843, Ch. 14, section XVIII).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
发现概率在刑罚判断中的作用
在九项实验中——一项是给以色列法官的问卷调查,其余的在万维网上——我们检验了犯罪被发现的概率对惩罚判决的影响。当概率不同的案例被分开时,我们几乎没有发现注意概率的证据(就像其他人之前发现的那样)。然而,当案例一个接一个地呈现时,相当少数的受试者会考虑概率。在一项研究中,通过对威慑效应的探针操作,增加了对概率的关注。我们发现识别犯罪者或要求受试者考虑政策与个人的影响不一致。一些受试者认为考虑概率是不公平的,但更多的受试者认为概率是相关的,因为需要威慑。我们认为,未能考虑概率在某种程度上是“孤立效应”的一个例子,在这种情况下,人们不太考虑次要效应,而不完全是意识形态上对惩罚“公正”观点的承诺的结果。“为了使惩罚的价值超过犯罪所带来的利益,必须在量值上增加,在确定性上不足时按比例增加。(边沁,1948/1843,第14章,第十八节)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Limits of Formalism in the Separation of Powers Putting Freedom of Contract in its Place Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models How Election Rules Affect Who Wins Remote Work and City Decline: Lessons From the Garment District
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1