On the efficiency of penal systems: Several lessons from the Italian experience

International Review of Law and Economics

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 115-126

  Boari, Nicola ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031092193     PISSN: 01448188     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0144-8188(96)00061-0     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. ARANSON, P.H. (1986). Economic efficiency and the common law: A critical survey. M.J. GRAF VON DER SCHULENBERG AND G. SKOGH (Eds.), Law and Economics and the Economics of Legal Regulation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2. BOARI, N. (1996). Law and economics in action: An efficiency analysis of the Italian penal procedures after 1989. Quaderno di Ricerca no. 76, Dipartimento di Economia, Università di Ancona.
3. BOARI, N., AND FIORENTINI, G. (1996). An economic analysis of plea bargaining: The incentives of the parties in a mixed penal system. Mimeo.
4. COOTER, R., AND KORNHAUSER, L. (1980). Can litigation improve the law without the help of judges? Journal of Legal Studies 9:139.
5. DAMASKA, M. (1986). The Faces of Justice and State Authority. New Haven: Yale University Press.
6. FABRI, M. (1994), Theory versus practice of Italian criminal justice reform. Judicature. 4(77):211-216.
7. ISTAT. (1972-1991). Statistiche Giudiziarie.
8. HOVENKAMP, H. (1995). Law and economics in the United States: A brief historical survey. Cambridge Journal of Economics 19:331-352.
9. LANDES, W. (1971). An economic analysis of the courts. Journal of Law and Economics 14(1):61-107.
10. LANDES, W., AND POSNER, R. (1979). Adjudication as a Private Good. Journal of Legal Studies 8:235.
11. LEWIN, A., MOREY, R., AND COOK, T. (1982). Evaluating the administrative efficiency of courts. OMEGA 10(4):401-411.
12. MCCHESNEY, F. (1977). On the procedural superiority of a civil law system: A comment. Kyklos 30(3): 507-510.
13. MILLER, J. (1990). Plea bargaining and its analogues under the new Italian criminal procedure code and in the United States: Towards a new understanding of comparative criminal procedure. New York Journal of International Law and Politics 22:218.
14. MINISTERO DI GRAZIA E GIUSTIZIA. (1994). Ufficio V, Monitoraggio del Nuovo Codice di Procedura Penale.
15. ORDOVER, J.A., AND WEITZMAN, P. (1977). On the efficient organization of trials: A comment. Kyklos 30(3):511-516.
16. PIZZI, W., AND MARAFIOTI, L. (1992). The new Italian code of criminal procedure: The difficulties of building an adversarial trial system on a civil law foundation. Yale Journal of Law 1(17):1-39.
17. PRIEST, G.L. (1977). The common law process and the selection of efficient rules. Journal of Legal Studies 6:65-82.
18. RUBIN, P. (1977). Why is common law efficient? Journal of Legal Studies 6:51.
19. RUBIN, P. (1983). Business Firms and the Common Law: The Evolution of Efficient Rules. New York: Praeger.
20. SCOTT, R.E., AND STUNTZ, W.J. (1992). Plea Bargaining as Contract. The Yale Law Journal 101:1909-1968.
21. TULKENS, H. (1990). Non-parametric efficiency analysis in four service activities: Retail banking, municipalities, courts and urban transit. CORE Discussion Paper no. 9050.
22. TULLOCK, G. (1975). On the efficient organization of trials. Kyklos 28(4):745-762.
23. UBERTIS, G. (1993). Sisifo e Penelope - Il nuovo codice di procedura penale dal progetto preliminare alla ricostruzione del sistema, Torino.
24. VAN TULDER, F. (1994). Law enforcement, production and the decision-making process: An analysis of Dutch police-departments. Public Finance/Finance Publiques 49:259-276.