Abstract
The legal system will not function effectively or fairly if juries are asked to make decisions that are beyond their competency. A large body of empirical literature shows that unaided lay-decisions about uncertain, risky events exhibit many errors and biases. The results of an original empirical study demonstrated that mock-jurors are susceptible to dramatic hindsight effects in their judgments of liability for punitive damages. A companion study of experienced trial judges found the judges ex ante and ex post decisions were much more consistent. This Article explores the implications of these findings for the reform of legal procedures in punitive damages judgments.
How to Cite
40 Ariz. L. Rev. 901 (1998)
17
Views
9
Downloads
