Philippe, Arnaud (2017) Do jurors and professional judges differ in their treatment of crime?: Evidence from French reform. TSE Working Paper, n. 17-763, Toulouse

There is a more recent version of this item available.

Preview

Text Download (1MB) | Preview

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.

Available Versions of this Item

• Do jurors and professional judges differ in their treatment of crime? (deposited 09 Feb 2017 15:48) [Currently Displayed]
  • Does introducing lay people in criminal courts affect judicial decisions? (deposited 13 Apr 2018 08:17)