事实证人给付的经济学分析

E. Kontorovich, E. Friedman
{"title":"事实证人给付的经济学分析","authors":"E. Kontorovich, E. Friedman","doi":"10.1093/JLA/3.1.139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we discuss the disparate treatment of perceptual (\"fact\") witnesses and expert witnesses in the legal system. We highlight the distinction between the perceptual act of witnessing and the act of testifying, and argue that although there might be good reasons to regulate payments to fact witnesses, the customary prohibition on paying them for their services is not justified by reference to economic theory. We propose considering a court mediated system for compensating fact witnesses so as to encourage witnessing of legally important events.We construct a simple model of witness incentives, and simulate the effects of several possible payment mechanisms. Although it is possible that any system that offers a financial incentive will induce some unreliable witness testimony, we argue that the current system also provides incentives for biased testimony, so it is not clear that a payment system would lower the quality of witness testimony.","PeriodicalId":228651,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Evidentiary Procedure eJournal","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Economic Analysis of Fact Witness Payment\",\"authors\":\"E. Kontorovich, E. Friedman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/JLA/3.1.139\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper we discuss the disparate treatment of perceptual (\\\"fact\\\") witnesses and expert witnesses in the legal system. We highlight the distinction between the perceptual act of witnessing and the act of testifying, and argue that although there might be good reasons to regulate payments to fact witnesses, the customary prohibition on paying them for their services is not justified by reference to economic theory. We propose considering a court mediated system for compensating fact witnesses so as to encourage witnessing of legally important events.We construct a simple model of witness incentives, and simulate the effects of several possible payment mechanisms. Although it is possible that any system that offers a financial incentive will induce some unreliable witness testimony, we argue that the current system also provides incentives for biased testimony, so it is not clear that a payment system would lower the quality of witness testimony.\",\"PeriodicalId\":228651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence & Evidentiary Procedure eJournal\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence & Evidentiary Procedure eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/JLA/3.1.139\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Evidentiary Procedure eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JLA/3.1.139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

在本文中,我们讨论了知觉(“事实”)证人和专家证人在法律制度中的区别对待。我们强调了目击的感知行为和作证行为之间的区别,并认为,尽管可能有很好的理由来规范对事实证人的支付,但从经济理论的角度来看,禁止为他们的服务支付费用的惯例是不合理的。我们建议考虑法院调解制度,以补偿事实证人,以鼓励见证法律上重要的事件。我们构建了一个简单的证人激励模型,并模拟了几种可能的支付机制的影响。尽管任何提供财政激励的制度都有可能诱发一些不可靠的证人证词,但我们认为,目前的制度也为有偏见的证词提供了激励,因此尚不清楚支付制度是否会降低证人证词的质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
An Economic Analysis of Fact Witness Payment
In this paper we discuss the disparate treatment of perceptual ("fact") witnesses and expert witnesses in the legal system. We highlight the distinction between the perceptual act of witnessing and the act of testifying, and argue that although there might be good reasons to regulate payments to fact witnesses, the customary prohibition on paying them for their services is not justified by reference to economic theory. We propose considering a court mediated system for compensating fact witnesses so as to encourage witnessing of legally important events.We construct a simple model of witness incentives, and simulate the effects of several possible payment mechanisms. Although it is possible that any system that offers a financial incentive will induce some unreliable witness testimony, we argue that the current system also provides incentives for biased testimony, so it is not clear that a payment system would lower the quality of witness testimony.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Dying Declarations: A Comparative Analysis of Admissibility and Evidentiary Value Probability, Presumptions and Evidentiary Burdens in Antitrust Analysis: Revitalizing the Rule of Reason for Exclusionary Conduct The Development of Payment Systems in Tanzania: A Discussion on the Laws Governing Electronic Cheque Tanzania Court-Appointed Experts and Accuracy in Adversarial Litigation Presumption of Negligence
×
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