 Salience and the severity versus the certainty of punishmentMurat C. Mungan International Review of Law and Economics, 2019, vol. 57, issue C, 95-100 Abstract: A common presumption, supported by some empirical evidence, is that the certainty of punishment is a more effective deterrent than the severity of punishment. In rational decision making models of crime, this presumption implies that offenders must be risk-seeking. Some scholars claim that this and other anomalous implications are caused by the exclusion of various behavioral considerations in theoretical analyses. This article investigates whether a model in which criminals over-weigh probabilities attached to more salient payoffs (as the term is used by Bordalo, Gennaioli, and Shleifer in a series of influential articles) performs better than simple expected utility theory in explaining criminal behavior that is more responsive to the certainty than the severity of punishment. The analysis reveals that the answer is negative unless the probability of punishment is unreasonably high. This finding suggests that we should exercise caution in incorporating salience – a la Bordalo et al. – in models of criminal behavior. Keywords: Salience; Criminal behavior; Deterrence; Certainty of punishment; Severity of punishment; Risk preferences (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:57:y:2019:i:c:p:95-100 DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2019.01.002 Access Statistics for this article International Review of Law and Economics is currently edited by C. Ott, A. W. Katz and H-B. Schäfer More articles in International Review of Law and Economics from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.