On proportionality of punishments and the economic theory of crime

被引:0
作者
Thomas J. Miceli
机构
[1] University of Connecticut,Department of Economics
来源
European Journal of Law and Economics | 2018年 / 46卷
关键词
Criminal law; Proportionality; Punishment; Marginal deterrence; K14;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Practitioners of the modern economic theory of crime acknowledge the influence of the eighteenth century writers Montesquieu, Beccaria, and Bentham, whose theories of crime and punishment clearly presaged the economic approach. An important value espoused by all of these writers is proportionality between punishments and crimes, both as an end in itself and as a means of achieving marginal deterrence. This essay asks how closely the concept of proportionality is reflected in the prescriptions of the economic theory. The answer turns out to depend both on how proportionality is defined and on the assumptions underlying the enforcement regime.
引用
收藏
页码:303 / 314
页数:11
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
Adelstein R(1981)Institutional function and evolution in the criminal process Northwestern University Law Review 76 1-99
[2]  
Becker G(1968)Crime and punishment: An economic approach Journal of Political Economy 76 169-217
[3]  
Cooter R(1982)Economic analysis of punitive damages Southern California Law Review 56 79-101
[4]  
Friedman D(1993)Hanged for a sheep: The economics of marginal deterrence Journal of Legal Studies 22 345-366
[5]  
Sjostrom W(2014)Marginal deterrence when offenders act sequentially Economics Letters 124 523-525
[6]  
Friehe T(2005)The theory of criminal penalties and the economics of criminal law Review of Law and Economics 1 175-201
[7]  
Miceli T(1990)The social value of crime? International Review of Law and Economics 10 271-284
[8]  
Hylton K(1987)Should wealth be able to buy justice? Journal of Political Economy 95 1307-1316
[9]  
Lewin J(1991)Optimal criminal procedure: Fairness and deterrence International Review of Law and Economics 11 3-10
[10]  
Trumbull W(2008)Criminal sentencing guidelines and judicial discretion Contemporary Economic Policy 26 207-215