Over the past two decades, the United States has seen a dramatic increase in the number and magnitude of punitive damages verdicts rendered by juries in civil trials. But how do juries actually make decisions about punitive damages? To find out, the authors-specialists in psychology, economics, and the law-present the results of controlled experiments with over 600 mock juries involving the responses of more than 8,000 jury-eligible citizens.
Cass R. Sunstein is the Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence in the Law School and the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago.
Reid Hastie is a professor of behavioral science in the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago.
John W. Payne is the Joseph J. Ruvane Jr. Professor of Management, professor of psychology, and research professor of statistics and decision sciences at the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University.
David A. Schkade is the Herbert D. Kelleher Regents Professor of Business at the University of Texas at Austin.
W. Kip Viscusi is the John F. Cogan Jr. Professor of Law and Economics at Harvard Law School.
Preface and Acknoweldgments
The Problem and Efforts to Understand It
1 Overview: What We Did and What We Found Part I: How Juries Think
A From Outrage to Dollars
2 Shared Outrage, Erractic Awards
3 Deliberating about Dollars: The Severity Shift
4 Do Plaintiffs' Request and Plaintiffs' Identities Matter?
B To Punish or Not?
5 Judging Corporate Recklessness
6 Looking Backward in Punitive Judgments: 20-20 Vision?
C Jurors and Judges as Risk Managers
7 Corporate Risk Analysis: A Reckless Act?
8 Do People Want Optimal Detterence?
9 Detterence Instructions: What Jurors Won't Do
10 Judging Risk and Reckelssness
11 Do Judges Do Better? Part II: Conclusions
12 Putting It All Together
13 What Should Be Done?
Appendix: Judge's Instructions
List of Contributors