The evolution of a bail reform

This paper analyzes an attempt to reform the bail system through the development of procedures increasing the use of pre-trial release on own recognizance. A motivating question for the study is the extent to which criminal justice systems are organized to improve their performance over time. This depends upon the ability to generate new ideas, screen them, implement the good ones successfully, and diffuse those successfully implemented to other areas. How any particular reform evolves depends upon a variety of economic, political, and organizational factors. An evolutionary economic framework is used in an attempt to describe the interaction of these factors coherently. The paper suggests that (1) the reform as initially developed did represent an improvement; (2) considerable deterioration occurred over time after implementation; (3) diffusion was widespread with variable performance improvement; (4) an important benefit was the development of a spin-off reform; and (5) there is a general misorganization of resources at the local level for research and development efforts of criminal justice systems.Much of this research was undertaken while the author was in the stimulating environment of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University. Numerous individuals provided helpful suggestions and criticisms during the course of this study; I am grateful to them all. Robert Goldfarb, Merton Peck, Daniel Freed, and C.B. McGuire provided detailed criticisms which were enormously helpful. Particular thanks are due Richard Nelson for giving me a good credit rating as my intellectual debt to him continues to grow. Finally, I would like to thank the public and private officials who, by responding frankly to my interview queries, have made this study possible.     

Deception and Mutual Gains Bargaining: Are They Mutually Exclusive?

Conclusion We have made great strides in recent years teaching more people — in classrooms, corporate training sessions, and actual negotiations — about negotiations, including how to be more ethical and how to ensure that integrative joint gains are not left on the table. The fact that we even need to write an article like this is an indication of the advances that have been made.Yet exactly because of these advances, more care needs to be taken to ensure that the subtle distinction between what is ethical and what is integrative is maintained. Being ethical in negotiations is more complicated than producing greater joint utility, and the techniques that are helpful for producing greater joint utility should not be made more complicated by the addition of ethical concerns. Each issue — ethics and mutual gains bargaining — can stand on its own, and benefits by being considered on its own. By maintaining this distinction, we believe each will have greater clarity and greater impact, and our teaching and training will be both better received and more valuable to those we teach.     

Priorities for Preventive Action: Explaining Americans’ Divergent Reactions to 100 Public Risks

Why do Americans’ priorities for combating risks like terrorism, climate change, and violent crime often seem so uncorrelated with the dangers that those risks objectively present? Many scholars believe the answer to this question is that heuristics, biases, and ignorance cause voters to misperceive risk magnitudes. By contrast, this article argues that Americans’ risk priorities primarily reflect judgments about the extent to which some victims deserve more protection than others and the degree to which it is appropriate for government to intervene in different areas of social life. The article supports this argument with evidence drawn from a survey with 3,000 respondents, using pairwise comparisons to elicit novel measures of how respondents perceive nine dimensions of 100 life‐threatening risks. Respondents were well informed about these risks’ relative magnitudes—the correlation between perceived and actual mortality was .82—but those perceptions explained relatively little variation in policy preferences relative to judgments about the status of victims and the appropriate role of government. These findings hold regardless of political party, education, and other demographics. The article thus argues that the key to understanding Americans’ divergent reactions to risk lies more with their values than with their grasp of factual information.