Recent work on game theory and juries reaches the startling result that making convictions easier (by easing the requirement for unanimity) would make false convictions rarer. Only the guilty would be put at increased risk. The note explains why the result is contingent on a quirk in the mathematical analysis.
Bar Hillel, Maya
(1989) `How to Solve Probability Teasers', Philosophy of Science56: 348-358.
2.
Coughlin, Peter J.
(2000) `In Defense of Unanimous Jury Verdicts', American Political Science Review (Jun): 94: 375-394.
3.
Guarnaschelli, S. R. D. McKelvey
and T. R. Palfrey (2000) `An Experimental Study of Jury Decisions', American Political Science Review94: 407-423.
4.
Feddersen, Timothy
and Wolfgang Pesendorfer (1998) `Convicting the Innocent: The Inferiority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts Under Strategic Voting', American Political Science Review92 (Mar.): 23-35.
5.
Feddersen, Timothy
and Wolfgang Pesendorfer (1999) `Elections, Information Aggregation and Strategic Voting', Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA96: 10572-10574 (September).
6.
Margolis, H.
(1998) `Tycho's Illusion and Human Cognition', Nature392 (30 April): 857-857.
7.
Margolis, H.
(2001a) `Pivotal Voting', Journal of Theoretical Politics13(1): 111-116.
8.
Margolis, H.
(2001b) `Pivotal Votes and the Emperor's New Clothes', Societal Choice and Welfare, in press.
9.
Shiller, R.
(1999) Irrational Exuberance. New York: Norton.
