Abstract
Virtually every burden of proof is influenced by a rule regarding relitigation. In criminal law, the prosecutor is prevented from repeatedly drawing from the urn, as it were, by the double jeopardy rule, which reinforces the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. We suggest that if law were to permit defendants to waive double-jeopardy protection, private and social benefits might follow. The benefits derive from the likelihood that prosecutors-like most people who can take a test but once-over invest in preparation. Somewhat similarly, though far a field, deficit spending by a legislature might be linked to the fact that spending proposals that are rebuffed can be retested or revisited. We contemplate offering defendants the option of waiving their double-jeopardy protection in anticipation of reduced prosecutorial investment. Innocent defendants might then be more likely to waive, in which case there will be socially beneficial sorting of defendants.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 273-293 |
Number of pages | 21 |
Journal | Journal of Legal Studies |
Volume | 40 |
Issue number | 2 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 2011 |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Law