Consequences of Inconvenient Information: Evidence from Sentencing Disparity

Abstract

I explore consequences of publishing inconvenient information about the performance of public institutions. To understand how citizens would respond to such information, I conducted a survey experiment in which respondents were informed about sentencing disparity in the Czech Republic caused by different practices of imposing sentences among judges, i.e. information that likely questions the competence of the criminal justice system to deliver on its responsibility. The results suggest that such information does not lead to distrust and avoidance of the formal judicial system. Instead, the treated respondents became more likely to sign a petition that invites politicians to address the underlying issue, and respondents found fairness of the judicial system as a more important policy issue. I found sizeable heterogeneity in the treatment effect. The increase in the willingness to sign a petition was driven by mothers, who are arguably more sensitive to the particular treatment information in the presented case of a failure to pay alimony.