Economics Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Jury theorem: The jury theorem is a mathematical theorem that states that, under certain assumptions, a majority vote of a large group is more likely to be correct than the decision of any individual member of the group. See also Collective intelligence._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Economic Theories on Jury Theorem - Dictionary of Arguments
Parisi I 494 Jury theorem/Economic theories/Nitzan/Paroush: In 1785 no jury existed in France. Condorcet applied probability theory to judicial questions and argued that the English demand for unanimity among jurors was unreasonable, suggesting instead a jury of twelve members that can convict with a majority of at least ten. In 1815 the first French juries used Condorcet’s rule but later adopted the simple majority rule. At that time the mathematician Laplace argued that simple majority is a dangerous decision rule for juries. Since 1837 juries had been established on several different plans, but the French law has never believed that one could count on twelve people agreeing (see Hacking, 1990(1), ch. 11). Since the 1970s, several works have analyzed the jury system by applying probability theory as well as statistical data. Gelfand and Solomon (1973(2), 1975(3)), Gerardi (2000)(4), Klevorick and Rothschild (1979)(5), and Lee, Broedersz, and Bialek (2013)(6) are a few such studies. >Condordet Jury Theorem, >Decision theory, >Decision-making processes. 1. Hacking, I. (1990). The Taming of Chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2. Gelfand, A. and H. Solomon (1973). “A study of Poisson’s model for jury verdicts in criminal and civil courts.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 68(342): 271–278. 3. Gelfand, A. and H. Solomon (1975). “Analyzing the decision-making process of the American jury.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 70(350): 305–310. 4. Gerardi, D. (2000). “Jury verdicts and preference diversity.” American Political Science Review 94(2): 395–406. 5. Klevorick, A. K. and M. Rothschild (1979). “A model of the jury decision process.” Journal of Legal Studies 8(1): 141–164. 6. Lee, E. D., C. P. Broedersz, and W. Bialek (2013). “Statistical mechanics of the US Supreme Court.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.5004. Shmuel Nitzan and Jacob Paroush. “Collective Decision-making and the Jury Theorems”. In: Parisi, Francesco (ed) (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics. Vol 1: Methodology and Concepts. NY: Oxford University._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Economic Theories Parisi I Francesco Parisi (Ed) The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics: Volume 1: Methodology and Concepts New York 2017 |
||
Authors A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Concepts A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
