I consider a scenario where a social planner suspects that a crime has been committed. There are many suspects and at most one of them is guilty. I characterize the optimal mechanism for the social planner under different assumptions with respect to her commitment power. I find that the optimal mechanism is a “confession inducing mechanism”: Before an investigation, each agent can confess to being guilty in exchange for a reduced punishment. I find that these mechanisms do better than the traditional trial mechanism because of information externalities: When an agent credibly confesses his guilt, he reveals everyone else's innocence.

The literature initiated by Green and Laffont (1986) studies principal-agent models with hard evidence. Evidence is modeled by assuming that the message set of the agent is type dependent. In this setup, Glazer and Rubinstein (2004, 2006) and Sher (2011) show that when the agent’s utility function is type independent there is no advantage for the principal in having commitment power. This paper shows that this way of modeling evidence implicitly assumes it to be perfectly accurate and that the result that commitment power has no value is not robust to making the evidence imperfect. (JEL C70, D82)

In countries/states where voluntary euthanasia (VE) or physician‐assisted suicide (PAS) is legal, the patient's decision about whether to request VE or PAS heavily relies on the information others provide. We use the tools of microeconomic theory to study how communication between the patient, his family and his physician influences the patient's decision. We argue that families have considerable power over the patient and that the amount of information that is transmitted from physician to patient might be severely diminished as a result of legalizing VE or PAS. We discuss our main results in the context of the ongoing normative debate over the legalization of VE and PAS. (JEL D8, I12)