a b s t r a c tStandard theory assumes that voters' preferences over actions (voting) are induced by their preferences over electoral outcomes (policies, candidates). But voters may also have nonconsequentialist (NC) motivations: they may care about how they vote even if it does not affect the outcome. When the likelihood of being pivotal is small, NC motivations can dominate voting behavior. To examine the prevalence of NC motivations, we design an experiment that exogenously varies the probability of being pivotal yet holds constant other features of the decision environment. We find a significant effect, consistent with at least 12.5 percent of subjects being motivated by NC concerns.

This paper establishes that there may be an inverse relation between the rate of detection and the deterrent effects of stigma. The more people are detected and stigmatized, the less deterrence there may be. This conclusion is based on a search model in which the costs of searching for law-abiding partners increase with the rate of detection. The model distinguishes between willing stigmatizers, who refrain from business or social contacts with someone they believe has committed an offense (whether he is detected or not), and unwilling stigmatizers, whose main concern is not to be associated with the stigmatized yet are indifferent to whether that person has actually committed an offense. The inverse relation between the rate of detection and the deterrent effect of stigma is possible when the percentage of unwilling stigmatizers in the population is sufficiently high.

No abstract

Criminal sanctions are usually public, stable and predictable. In contrast, the practices governing the determination of the probability of detection and conviction reinforce uncertainty. We invoke psychological insights to illustrate that criminals prefer a scheme in which the size of the sentence is uncertain while the probability of detection and conviction is certain. Consequently, the choice to increase certainty with respect to the size of the sentence and to decrease certainty with respect to the probability of detection and conviction can be justified on the grounds that such a scheme is disfavored by criminals and consequently has better deterrent effects. CONTENTS

Bias crime legislation-or, as it is sometimes called, hate crime legislation-enhances the punishment of crimes that are carried out because of the victim's race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Since its inception, bias crime legislation has sparked substantial political controversy and scholarly discussion. This debate was recently rekindled by the horrendous murder of Matthew Shepard, which shocked our society and prompted President Clinton to speak to the issue in this year's State of the Union Address.! The academic community, however, remains deeply divided over the need for and desirability of such legislation. 2 The disagreement about bias crime is due in large part to the fact that existing justifications for bias crime legislation proceed from the premise that the rationale supporting bias crime legislation must be found either in