The University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog

Student Blogger - Moral Relevance and the Demand Curve

Our good friend Jones has amassed a fortune through an enviable recipe of hard work and clean living. Jones has no heirs, and unfortunately for us, does not consider us to be particularly good friends of hers. Actually, she has said repeatedly that she sees little point in leaving even a cent of her money behind when she dies.

Sadly, in the past week Jones learned that she has a life-threatening brain tumor. Given the standard medical treatment, covered by the medical insurance plan Jones selected for herself, doctors tell Jones she has a 10% chance of surviving beyond one month. However, one doctor in the country has developed a ground-breaking new technique called the “super gamma knife.” This safe technique costs $10 million and imposes remarkable social costs (the doctor has to notify the local power companies before each procedure to avoid brownouts, and performing the procedure takes him away from his work as a youth mentor). But the procedure would increase her chance of surviving beyond one month to 15%. Relevantly, when researching health insurance, Jones opted against purchasing the super-expensive “DeLorean” plan, which would have covered this type of futuristic procedure.

Jones realizes that $10 million is a lot to spend for such a small increase in her chance of survival, but since her money is worth nothing to her after she dies, she might as well pay for the cutting-edge technique.

Professor Ariel Porat, in a developing paper co-authored with Avraham Tabbach and Omri Yadlin, suggests that this story should bother us for a number of reasons. Porat discussed the paper with the Law and Philosophy Workshop.

Student Blogger - Aggregating Probabilities across Offenses in Criminal Law

Professor Ariel Porat recently presented his paper (with Alon Harel), Aggregating Probabilities across Offenses in Criminal Law, at the Law and Economics Workshop. This is a forum where academic working papers are presented and discussed among interested faculty and students.

To be convicted for a criminal offense, it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense. This currently remains true even when the defendant is charged with multiple offenses. He must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for each individual offense. As a result, some criminal defendants may remain unconvicted of any offense even though it is likely that the defendant committed each offense (but not beyond a reasonable doubt for any single offense), and almost certain that he committed at least one of the offenses (beyond a reasonable doubt).

Professor Ariel Porat argues that the probabilities for these individual offenses should be aggregated so that such defendants are convicted of some crime. The question should be whether it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed an offense instead of whether it is beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant committed a specific offense. This reformulation certainly would result in more criminals being convicted (increasing deterrance), but it would also increase the number of innocent people falsely convicted. The desirability of this approach hinges on minimizing the latter.

"If You Are Not Pleased with Our Service, You Do Not Have to Pay"

A few weeks ago, I traveled with my family to Indiana. We stopped for one night at Hampton Inn. At the reception desk, we noticed a sign saying something like "If you are not pleased with our service, you do not have to pay." Legally speaking, that means that a guest can walk away without paying. Such behavior could be quite rewarding: the rate for a suite is about $200 a night, so a three-day-stay without paying could be a real temptation. How can the hotel afford such a policy? Before responding, let me say first that neither I nor my colleagues at the Law School with whom I talked have witnessed such a policy actually carried out by a hotel. Most of us have seen something similar in restaurants, where a sign says something like "Don't pay if you did not like our food." But the risk of not being paid for a pizza is not comparable to the risk of losing a few hundred dollars!