In the American courts system all criminal trials require a unanimous jury decision to pass down a verdict. Hence Jury voting is an interesting application of External Costs and Decision-Making Costs as described in The Calculus of Consent chapter 6.
The External Costs in a criminal trial are disproporiantly high for the accused since a conviction can result in the revoking of the inalienable rights of property, liberty, and in some states even life. However, External Costs for the Jury are low since it is unlikely that a jury member's utility is dependent on the livelihood of the defendant. I feel the requirement of a unanimous verdict for criminal convictions is justifiable due to the severity of the external costs imposed upon the defendant under a guilty verdict; the limiting or revoking of fundamental individual rights that pre-exist government. An implication of the unanimity requirement is higher decision-making costs since all jury members must vote for the same verdict (analogous to unanimous preferences). The main cost for jury members is the opportunity cost of their time which is best illustrated in the movie "12 angry men" where the protagonist is the holdout on a guilty vote which prevents another jury member from being able to watch a baseball game that night.
It is interesting to study a non-economic field, Law, from a Public Choice economics perspective. Curious to hear others' thoughts about how I applied the concepts of External Costs and Decision-Making Costs or anything another perspective you all have about instances of collective choice in trials/law.
1 comment:
I agree with your argument that the decision-making costs are high for the jury in a court trial. I think that an interesting solution to this problem would be to pay the jury for their time. If all the jury members were paid the same amount they would have been paid working at their normal job, they would be incentivized to spend as much time as necessary to come to the correct, unanimous decision. This would ensure that no members of the jury decide to agree with the majority simply for the sake of expediency in the trial so that they could get back to work. Also, the jury members should not be paid the same amount for their time, as the member who makes $100 per hour would be disincentivized to pursue a correct verdict if the jury members were paid $50/hr. Likewise, the members who make $25/hr would be incentivized to take longer than necessary to reach a verdict, thus wasting everyone's time and money.
Post a Comment