Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Understanding Disparate Results
AbstractThe panel data literature on deterrence and capital punishment contains a wide range of empirical claims despite the use of common data sets for analysis. We interpret the diversity of findings in the literature in terms of differences in statistical model assumptions. Rather than attempt to determine a "best" model from which to draw empirical evidence on deterrence and the death penalty, this paper asks what conclusions about deterrence may be drawn given the presence of model uncertainty, i.e. uncertainty about which statistical assumptions are appropriate. We consider four sources of model uncertainty that capture some of the economically substantive differences that appear across studies. We explore which dimensions of these assumptions are important in generating disparate findings on capital punishment and deterrence from a standard county-level crime data set.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Society for Economic Dynamics in its series 2012 Meeting Papers with number 53.
Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Society for Economic Dynamics Christian Zimmermann Economic Research Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis PO Box 442 St. Louis MO 63166-0442 USA
Web page: http://www.EconomicDynamics.org/society.htm
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- Steven N. Durlauf & Chao Fu & Salvador Navarro, 2011. "Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Understanding Disparate Results," Working Papers 2012-005, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
- NEP-ALL-2012-10-27 (All new papers)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Donohue III, John J. & Wolfers, Justin, 2006.
"Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate,"
IZA Discussion Papers
1949, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Donohue, John J & Wolfers, Justin, 2006. "Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate," CEPR Discussion Papers 5493, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- John J. Donohue III & Justin Wolfers, 2006. "Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate," NBER Working Papers 11982, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- James J. Heckman & Daniel Schmierer, 2009.
"Testing the Correlated Random Coefficient Model,"
200937, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
- Heckman, James J. & Schmierer, Daniel & Urzua, Sergio, 2009. "Testing the Correlated Random Coefficient Model," IZA Discussion Papers 4525, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- James J. Heckman & Daniel A. Schmierer & Sergio S. Urzua, 2009. "Testing the Correlated Random Coefficient Model," NBER Working Papers 15463, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- James Heckman & Daniel Schmierer & Sergio Urzua, 2010. "Testing the correlated random coefficient model," CeMMAP working papers CWP10/10, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
- Mocan, H Naci & Gittings, R Kaj, 2003. "Getting Off Death Row: Commuted Sentences and the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 46(2), pages 453-78, October.
- Durlauf, Steven N. & Navarro, Salvador & Rivers, David A., 2010. "Understanding aggregate crime regressions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 158(2), pages 306-317, October.
- Ethan Cohen-Cole & Steven Durlauf & Jeffrey Fagan & Daniel Nagin, 2007. "Model uncertainty and the deterrent effect of capital punishment," Risk and Policy Analysis Unit Working Paper QAU07-3, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
- Abbring, Jaap H. & Heckman, James J., 2007. "Econometric Evaluation of Social Programs, Part III: Distributional Treatment Effects, Dynamic Treatment Effects, Dynamic Discrete Choice, and General Equilibrium Policy Evaluation," Handbook of Econometrics, in: J.J. Heckman & E.E. Leamer (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 6, chapter 72 Elsevier.
- Hashem Dezhbakhsh & Paul Rubin, 2007.
"From the "Econometrics of Capital Punishment" to the "Capital Punishment" of Econometrics: On the Use and Abuse of Sensitivity Analysis,"
0715, Department of Economics, Emory University (Atlanta).
- Hashem Dezhbakhsh & Paul Rubin, 2011. "From the 'econometrics of capital punishment' to the 'capital punishment' of econometrics: on the use and abuse of sensitivity analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(25), pages 3655-3670.
- Paul R. Zimmerman, 2004. "State executions, deterrence, and the incidence of murder," Journal of Applied Economics, Universidad del CEMA, vol. 0, pages 163-193, May.
- Hashem Dezhbakhsh & Paul H. Rubin & Joanna M. Shepherd, 2003. "Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 344-376, August.
- Theo S. Eicher & Alex Lenkoski & Adrian Raftery, 2009. "Bayesian Model Averaging and Endogeneity Under Model Uncertainty: An Application to Development Determinants," Working Papers UWEC-2009-19-FC, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
Blog mentionsAs found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
- We do not know the deterrence effect of capital punishment
by Economic Logician in Economic Logic on 2012-04-19 14:27:00
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christian Zimmermann).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.