Top

Published in:

2019 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

3. Crime As Exchange: Retribution

Author : Thomas J. Miceli

Published in: The Paradox of Punishment

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

This chapter explores an alternative economic theory of crime based on the work of Richard Adelstein. Unlike the Becker model, it argues that the criminal process operates as part of the “exchange order” of society. The goal of punishment is, therefore, to mediate criminal exchanges, defined to be involuntary transfers of legal rights between offenders and their victims. Within this setting, criminal liability is specifically aimed at “completing the exchange” by imposing proportional punishment on offenders. That is, offenders pay for the crime that they committed, while at the same time the public nature of punishment implicitly compensates society for the moral costs of the crime. The guiding principle of this system is retribution, or corrective justice on a case-by-case basis, rather than deterrence.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter The Social Cost of Crime: Deterrence

next chapter Sentencing Guidelines and Judicial Discretion: Balancing Deterrence and Retribution

Also see Adelstein (1981).

Specifically, the concept of “collective responsibility” in Chap. 7 will illustrate this point.

This envisions each buyer as purchasing at most one unit. Alternatively, if buyers can purchase more than one unit, the negative slope reflects a diminishing marginal benefit of additional units.

The closest analogy in actual markets is when retailers add a price premium to account for shoplifting, thereby requiring paying customers to compensate the store for the costs of non-paying customers.

Victims of crime can sometimes seek actual compensation through the tort system, as will be discussed below.

See City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 454 U.S. 247 (1981).

See, for example, Cooter (1989) and Polinsky and Shavell (1998).

This reflects the idea of “demoralization costs,” which Michelman (1967) first introduced as one of the costs associated with uncompensated government takings of property.

See, for example, Holmes (1881, p. 37), Murphy (1997, p. 148), Harel (2012, p. 10), and Adelstein (2017, p. 11).

See, for example, Posner (1983) and Parisi and Dari-Mattiacci (2004).

The standard for conviction in all criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, but that phrase is vague enough to admit some discretion. For example, Posner (2003, p. 620) suggests that it can encompass anywhere from 75% to 95% certainty.

We pursue this point in more detail in Chap. 5.

The following is based on Miceli (2018).

Recall from Chap. 2 that optimal deterrence when enforcement is costly generally does not involve setting the expected fine equal to the dollar-equivalent in harm from the crime; rather, it should be set below it, resulting in some underdeterrence.

The logic is a bit more subtle for prison—see the discussion in Chap. 2.

The supply curve does not, however, reflect that component of the moral cost of crime not directly incurred by immediate victims.

See Phlips (1983) for a survey of the economics of price discrimination.

As we have noted, some harms are both crimes and torts, meaning that both the state and the victim can pursue actions concurrently. However, this does not explain the co-existence of both areas of law, and how acts are classified into one or the other category. Economists have studied this issue but have not provided a completely convincing explanation. See, for example, Shavell (1993), Friedman (2000, Chap. 18), Harel (2012), and Mungan (2012).

There is, however, a category of torts called “intentional torts.” See Landes and Posner (1987, Chap. 6).

Liability rules also govern some exchanges in property law, such as government takings under eminent domain; and in contract law, such as damage remedies for breach of contract.

In a radical proposal, Posner and Weyl (2018) argue for an expanded use of liability rules as a way to overcome the inherently monopolistic nature of private property and the consequent inefficiency of markets.

Also, see Klevorick (1985) and Coleman (1988, Chap. 6). In a different context, Cooter (1984) likewise distinguishes between legal remedies as prices versus sanctions.

Adelstein, Richard. 1981. Institutional Function and Evolution in the Criminal Process. Northwestern University Law Review 76: 1–99.

———. 2017. The Exchange Order: Property and Liability as an Exchange System. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Andreoni, James. 1991. Reasonable Doubt and the Optimal Magnitude of Fines: Should the Penalty Fit the Crime? The Rand Journal of Economics 22 (3): 385.CrossRef

Calabresi, Guido, and A. Douglas Melamed. 1972. Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral. Harvard Law Review 85: 1089–1128.CrossRef

Coleman, Jules. 1988. Markets, Morals and the Law. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cooter, Robert. 1984. Prices and Sanctions. Columbia Law Review 84: 1523–1560.CrossRef

———. 1989. Punitive Damages for Deterrence: When and How Much? Alabama Law Review 40: 1143–1196.

Dawson, Robert. 1969. Sentencing: The Decision as to Type, Length, and Conditions of Sentence. Boston: Little Brown.

Friedman, David. 2000. Law’s Order: What Economics Has to Do with the Law and Why It Matters. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Harel, Alon. 2012. Economic Analysis of Criminal Law: A Survey. In Research Handbook on the Economics of Criminal Law, ed. Alon Harel and Keith Hylton. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRef

Hart, H.L.A. 1982. Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Holmes, Oliver Wendell. 1881 [1963]. The Common Law. Boston: Little Brown.

Kahan, Dan. 1998. Social Meaning and the Economic Analysis of Crime. The Journal of Legal Studies 27: 609–622.CrossRef

Keeton, W. Page, Dan Dobbs, Robert Keeton, and David Owen. 1984. Prosser and Keeton on Torts. 5th ed. St. Paul: West Publishing.

Klevorick, Alvin. 1985. On the Economic Theory of Crime. In NOMOS XXVII: Criminal Justice, ed. J. Pennock and J. Chapman. New York: New York University Press.

Landes, William, and Richard Posner. 1987. The Economic Structure of Tort Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRef

Lundberg, Alexander. 2016. Sentencing Discretion and Burdens of Proof. International Review of Law and Economics 46: 34–42.CrossRef

Mermin, Samuel. 1982. Law and the Legal System: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Boston: Little-Brown.

Miceli, Thomas. 2018. On the Proportionality of Punishments and the Economic Theory of Crime. European Journal of Law and Economics 46: 303–314.CrossRef

Michelman, Frank. 1967. Property, Utility, and Fairness: Comments on the Ethical Foundations of ‘Just Compensation’ Law. Harvard Law Review 80: 1165–1258.CrossRef

Mungan, Murat. 2012. The Scope of Criminal Law. In Research Handbook on the Economics of Criminal Law, ed. A. Harel and K. Hylton. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Murphy, Jeffrie. 1997. Repentance, Punishment, and Mercy. In Repentance: A Comparative Perspective, ed. A. Etzioni and D. Carney. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Parisi, Francesco, and Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci. 2004. The Rise and Fall of Communal Liability in Ancient Law. International Review of Law and Economics 24: 489–505.CrossRef

Phlips, Louis. 1983. The Economics of Price Discrimination. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Polinsky, A. Mitchell, and Steven Shavell. 1998. Punitive Damages: An Economic Analysis. Harvard Law Review 111: 869–962.CrossRef

Posner, Richard. 1983. The Economics of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

———. 2003. Economic Analysis of Law. 6th ed. New York: Aspen Law and Business.

Posner, Eric, and E. Glen Weyl. 2018. Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Markets for a Just Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef

Shavell, Steven. 1993. The Optimal Structure of Law Enforcement. Journal of Law and Economics 36: 255–287.CrossRef

White, Mark. 2018. The Neglected Nuance of Beccaria’s Theory of Punishment. European Journal of Law and Economics 46: 315–329.CrossRef

Title: Crime As Exchange: Retribution
Author: Thomas J. Miceli
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: The Paradox of Punishment
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31694-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-31695-2

Copyright Year: 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31695-2_3