不确定性下的司法与临床决策

C. Manski
{"title":"不确定性下的司法与临床决策","authors":"C. Manski","doi":"10.1628/jite-2020-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Norms for judicial and clinical decisions under uncertainty differ. When clinicians are uncertain about patient health, they view the patient as a member of a population with similar attributes and make care decisions using available knowledge about the distribution of health in this population. In contrast, legal systems typically do not permit a defendant to be convicted of a crime based on a justification that persons with similar attributes often commit this crime. This paper examines the implications if, emulating clinical practice, judges making conviction decisions were to use knowledge of rates of crime commission.","PeriodicalId":46932,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics-Zeitschrift Fur Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judicial and Clinical Decision-Making under Uncertainty\",\"authors\":\"C. Manski\",\"doi\":\"10.1628/jite-2020-0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Norms for judicial and clinical decisions under uncertainty differ. When clinicians are uncertain about patient health, they view the patient as a member of a population with similar attributes and make care decisions using available knowledge about the distribution of health in this population. In contrast, legal systems typically do not permit a defendant to be convicted of a crime based on a justification that persons with similar attributes often commit this crime. This paper examines the implications if, emulating clinical practice, judges making conviction decisions were to use knowledge of rates of crime commission.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics-Zeitschrift Fur Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics-Zeitschrift Fur Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1628/jite-2020-0006\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics-Zeitschrift Fur Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1628/jite-2020-0006","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

不确定性下的司法和临床决策规范不同。当临床医生不确定患者的健康状况时,他们将患者视为具有相似属性的人群中的一员,并利用有关该人群健康分布的现有知识做出护理决策。相比之下,法律制度通常不允许以具有相似特征的人经常犯这种罪行为理由而对被告定罪。本文探讨的影响,如果,模仿临床实践,法官作出定罪决定是使用的知识犯罪率。
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
Judicial and Clinical Decision-Making under Uncertainty
Norms for judicial and clinical decisions under uncertainty differ. When clinicians are uncertain about patient health, they view the patient as a member of a population with similar attributes and make care decisions using available knowledge about the distribution of health in this population. In contrast, legal systems typically do not permit a defendant to be convicted of a crime based on a justification that persons with similar attributes often commit this crime. This paper examines the implications if, emulating clinical practice, judges making conviction decisions were to use knowledge of rates of crime commission.
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
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊最新文献
Learning the Law Together: Judges, Litigants, and Case-by-Case Adjudication Learning the Law Together: Judges, Litigants, and Case-by-Case Adjudication Bias in Choice of Law: New Empirical and Experimental Evidence Plaintiff Favoritism in Judicial Cost-Shifting Decisions Is Choice of Law Biased? How Would we Know?
×
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