@techreport{publications22891,
          volume = {17-763},
           month = {February},
          author = {Arnaud Philippe},
          series = {TSE Working Paper},
       booktitle = {TSE Working Paper},
            type = {Working Paper},
         address = {Toulouse},
           title = {Do jurors and professional judges differ in their treatment of crime?},
       publisher = {TSE Working Paper},
            year = {2017},
     institution = {Universit{\'e} Toulouse 1 Capitole},
        keywords = {courts, sentencing, crime, judicial decision, jury members},
             url = {https://publications.ut-capitole.fr/id/eprint/22891/},
        abstract = {Do citizens and professional judges agree on the accuracy of sentences? While surveys regularly point out a demand by citizens for harsher punishment, the differences between surveys? and real decisions? conditions are large enough to cast a doubt on the results. The introduction of two jurors into a court composed of three professional judges in two French regions and for a subsample of crimes in 2012 offers a good natural experiment for documenting the question of the differences between professional judges and citizens. Difference-in-differences or tripledifference methods do not permit me to identify any change in the probability of being convicted or in sentences given by a court including jurors. If some characteristics of the reform could partly explain those null results, they clearly go against the hypothesis of a major disagreement between professional judges and citizens when they have to make real decisions in criminal cases.}
}