Self reporting, investigation and evidentiary standards by Heiko Gerlach
Material type:data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6b0ba/6b0ba83dea1b2061c05bcfba62c4cc7e8d358d60" alt="Text"
- text
- unmediated
- volume
- HB73 JOU
Item type | Current library | Call number | Vol info | Copy number | Status | Notes | Date due | Barcode | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Main Library - Special Collections | HB73 JOU (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Vol. 56, no.4 (pages 1061-1090) | SP20078 | Not for loan | For in house only |
Abstract Self-reporting schemes have become a substantial part of law enforcement. This paper analyzes the optimal use of such schemes when the authority cannot commit to an ex post investigation effort. I show that this leads to a negative relationship between self-reporting incentives and investigation effort. Three main conclusions arise. First, violators self-report with a probability of 1 if and only if full amnesty is offered. Second, self-reporting schemes are not efficient when the level of harm of the act is high. Finally, authorities can increase the incentives to self-report when they convict without hard evidence. However, a hard-evidence standard provides more deterrence and is weakly welfare superior
There are no comments on this title.