Abstract
This paper analyses, by means of an economic experiment, the impact of a vertical review on third-party punishment. Whereas the existing empirical literature has studied, under many different aspects, third-party costly punishment as such, it has not addressed the impact of a second “instance” (competent to overrule punishment decisions by the first punisher) on the incidence and amount of such first-instance punishment and the underlying unwanted behaviour (“stealing”). In this paper, we apply experimental methodology that allows us to construct in the lab the counterfactual context for a direct institutional comparison that we cannot find in real life. In particular, we examine first of all whether and how the presence of a second “vertical” punishment layer (i.e. of a “second instance”) affects the amount of punishment imposed in the first instance. Secondly, we check whether the presence of a second level of punishment has a deterrent effect on the underlying (undesired) behaviour. Finally, we examine the level of satisfaction of the victims in all scenarios. In our experiments, we find that the introduction of a second (vertical) tier of punishment increases (i) the level of punishment provided for in the first instance, (ii) deterrence with regard to the underlying behaviour (i.e. a reduction in the number of “thefts” being committed), and also (iii) the level of satisfaction for victims. Real-world applications of this study are plentiful, including the organisation of courts and the appeals process as a whole. Our evidence confirms that the presence of an “instance” (a second tier of legal decision making) is, other things equal, likely to generate beneficial effects.
References
Drahozal, C. R . 1998. “Judicial Incentives and the Appeals Process,” 51SMU Law Review469–503.Search in Google Scholar
Fehr, E. , and U.Fischbacher. 2004. “Third-Party Punishment and Social Norms,” 25Evolution and Human Behavior, 63–87.10.1016/S1090-5138(04)00005-4Search in Google Scholar
Fischbacher, U. 2007. “z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments”, 10(2) Experimental Economics,171–178.10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4Search in Google Scholar
Halberstam, Y . 2015. “Trial and Error: Decision Reversal and Panel Size in State Courts,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. First published online March 30, 2015 doi:10.1093/jleo/ewv007 (25 pages).10.1093/jleo/ewv007Search in Google Scholar
Higgins, R. S. , and P. H.Rubin. 1980. “Judicial Discretion,” 9The Journal of Legal Studies129–138.10.1086/467631Search in Google Scholar
Klein, D . Mitchell, G., ed. 2010. The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367584.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kornhauser, L . 2012a. “Appeal and Supreme Courts,” in Sanchirico, C., ed. Procedural Law and Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing, 19–52.Search in Google Scholar
Kornhauser, L . 2012b. “Judicial Organization and Administration,” in Sanchirico, C., ed Procedural Law and Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing, 308–340.Search in Google Scholar
Lewisch, P. G. , S.Ottone, and F.Ponzano. 2011. “Free-Riding on Altruistic Punishment? an Experimental Comparison of Third-Party Punishment in a Stand-Alone and in an in-Group Environment,” 7(1) Review of Law and Economics161–190.10.2202/1555-5879.1460Search in Google Scholar
Ottone, S . 2008. “Are People Samaritans or Avengers?,” 3(10) Economics Bulletin1–8.Search in Google Scholar
Ottone, S. , F.Ponzano, and L.Zarri. 2015. “Power to the People? an Experimental Analysis of Bottom-up Accountability of Third-Party Institutions,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. First published online May 7, 2014 doi:10.1093/jleo/ewu007 (36 pages).10.1093/jleo/ewu007Search in Google Scholar
Posner, R. A . 2005. “Judicial Behavior and Performance: An Economic Approach,” 32Florida State University Law Review1259–1415.Search in Google Scholar
Shavell, S . 2006. “The Appeals Process and Adjudicator Incentives,” 35(1) Journal of Legal Studies1–29.10.1086/500095Search in Google Scholar
Szego, B . 2008, Le impugnazioni in Italia: perchè le riforme non hanno funzionato, Quaderni di Ricerca Giuridica della Consulenza Legale, 61. Bank of Italy.Search in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter
