Document Type
Article
Publication Date
12-2025
Journal Title
Journal of Theoretical Politics
ISSN
0951-6298
DOI
10.1177/09516298251403406
Abstract
In his discussion of evidentiary policies, Blackstone famously noted that ‘it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer’ (Blackstone 1769). The conventional wisdom among lawyers, judges as well as academics holds that accepting this statement as a maxim necessitates the adoption of pro-defendant evidentiary rules. It is also commonly believed that costs associated with false convictions being greater than those associated with failures to punish offenders due to the presence of punishment costs provides a utilitarian rationale for Blackstonian principles. After formalizing Blackstone ratios (either as marginal rates of substitution or, alternatively, as the ratio between quantities of errors), I show these conventional views are incorrect. I then propose a simple modification of the Blackstone ratio, which shifts the focus from aggregate outcomes to consequences for individuals within the criminal justice system. This modification better aligns commonly held views about the Blackstone ratio with its actual implications and justifications.
Publisher
Sage
Rights
CC-BY-NC
Notes
This article was uploaded while published in Sage OnlineFirst, prior to final volume, issue, and pagination.
Recommended Citation
Murat C. Mungan,
The Blackstone ratio, modified,
J. Theoretical Pol.
(2025).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/2320
File Type
Included in
Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, Legal History Commons