最佳威慑的可接受性有多大?

IF 0.9 3区 社会学 Q3 ECONOMICS International Review of Law and Economics Pub Date : 2024-04-27 DOI:10.1016/j.irle.2024.106194
Michał Kłusek
{"title":"最佳威慑的可接受性有多大?","authors":"Michał Kłusek","doi":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The article examines the social acceptability of optimal deterrence policies. While there is considerable research on intuitions regarding punishment and the counter-intuitive nature of economic reasoning, the problem of whether decisions based on optimal deterrence are acceptable remains inadequately researched. Two studies examined how acceptance rates vary for different decisions implementing optimal deterrence theory. They demonstrate that (1) policies increasing punishment severity are more acceptable than those decreasing it; (2) changes at the level of penal policy are more acceptable than individual court rulings; (3) acceptance rates decrease as the magnitude of change increases; (4) strict adherence to optimal deterrence theory’s recommendations does not significantly affect the acceptability of the decisions. In addition, no optimal deterrence policies were accepted, on average, or by the majority of participants.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47202,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law and Economics","volume":"78 ","pages":"Article 106194"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How acceptable is optimal deterrence?\",\"authors\":\"Michał Kłusek\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106194\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The article examines the social acceptability of optimal deterrence policies. While there is considerable research on intuitions regarding punishment and the counter-intuitive nature of economic reasoning, the problem of whether decisions based on optimal deterrence are acceptable remains inadequately researched. Two studies examined how acceptance rates vary for different decisions implementing optimal deterrence theory. They demonstrate that (1) policies increasing punishment severity are more acceptable than those decreasing it; (2) changes at the level of penal policy are more acceptable than individual court rulings; (3) acceptance rates decrease as the magnitude of change increases; (4) strict adherence to optimal deterrence theory’s recommendations does not significantly affect the acceptability of the decisions. In addition, no optimal deterrence policies were accepted, on average, or by the majority of participants.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47202,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Law and Economics\",\"volume\":\"78 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106194\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Law and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818824000140\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Law and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818824000140","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文章探讨了最佳威慑政策的社会可接受性。虽然对惩罚的直觉和经济推理的反直觉性质已有大量研究,但对基于最优威慑的决策是否可接受这一问题的研究仍然不足。有两项研究考察了不同决策在执行最佳威慑理论时的接受率有何不同。研究表明:(1) 加重处罚的政策比减轻处罚的政策更容易被接受;(2) 刑事政策层面的变化比个别法院的裁决更容易被接受;(3) 接受率随着变化幅度的增加而降低;(4) 严格遵守最佳威慑理论的建议对决策的可接受性没有显著影响。此外,平均而言,没有一项最佳威慑政策被大多数参与者接受。
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
How acceptable is optimal deterrence?

The article examines the social acceptability of optimal deterrence policies. While there is considerable research on intuitions regarding punishment and the counter-intuitive nature of economic reasoning, the problem of whether decisions based on optimal deterrence are acceptable remains inadequately researched. Two studies examined how acceptance rates vary for different decisions implementing optimal deterrence theory. They demonstrate that (1) policies increasing punishment severity are more acceptable than those decreasing it; (2) changes at the level of penal policy are more acceptable than individual court rulings; (3) acceptance rates decrease as the magnitude of change increases; (4) strict adherence to optimal deterrence theory’s recommendations does not significantly affect the acceptability of the decisions. In addition, no optimal deterrence policies were accepted, on average, or by the majority of participants.

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
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
18.20%
发文量
38
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: The International Review of Law and Economics provides a forum for interdisciplinary research at the interface of law and economics. IRLE is international in scope and audience and particularly welcomes both theoretical and empirical papers on comparative law and economics, globalization and legal harmonization, and the endogenous emergence of legal institutions, in addition to more traditional legal topics.
期刊最新文献
Estimating the effect of concealed carry laws on murder: A response to Bondy, et al. The broken-windows theory of crime: A Bayesian approach Workload, legal doctrine, and judicial review in an authoritarian regime: A study of expropriation judgments in China Illicit enrichment in Germany: An evaluation of the reformed asset recovery regime's ability to confiscate proceeds of crime On the strategic choice of overconfident lawyers
×
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