Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 103–121 | Cite as

Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Understanding Disparate Results

Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

Investigate how different model assumptions have driven the conflicting findings in the literature on the deterrence effect of capital punishment.

Methods

The deterrence effect of capital punishment is estimated across different models that reflect the following sources of model uncertainty: (1) the uncertainty about the probability model generating the aggregate murder rate equation, (2) the uncertainty about the determinants of an individual’s choice of committing a murder or not, (3) the uncertainty about state level heterogeneity, and (4) the uncertainty about the exchangeability between observations with zero murder case and those with positive murder cases.

Results

First, the estimated deterrence effects exhibit great dispersion across models. Second, a particular subset of models—linear models with constant coefficients—always predict a positive deterrence effect. All other models predict negative deterrence effects. Third, the magnitudes of the point estimates of deterrence effects differ mainly because of the choice of linear versus logistic specifications.

Conclusions

The question about the deterrence effect of capital punishment cannot be answered independently from substantive assumptions on what determines individual behavior. The need for judgment cannot be escaped in empirical work.

Keywords

Capital punishment Deterrence Model uncertainty 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Timothy Conley and David Rivers for many helpful insights. Durlauf thanks the University of Wisconsin Graduate School and Vilas Trust for financial support. Hon Ho Kwok and Xiangrong Yu have provided outstanding research assistance.

References

  1. Abbring J, Heckman J (2007) Econometric evaluation of social programs, part III: distributional treatment effects, dynamic treatment effects, dynamic discrete choice, and general equilibrium policy evaluation. In: Heckman J, Leamer E (eds), Handbook of econometrics vol. 6. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker G (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic analysis. J Polit Econ 78:169–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berk R (2005) New claims about executions and general deterrence: Déjà Vu all over again? J Empir Leg Stud 2:303–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brock W, Durlauf S, West K (2003) Policy evaluation in uncertain economic environments (with discussion). Brookings Pap Econ Act 1:235–322Google Scholar
  5. Cochran J, Chamblin M, Seth M (1994) Deterrence or brutalization? An impact assessment of Oklahoma’s return to capital punishment. Criminology 32:107–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen-Cole E, Durlauf S, Fagan J, Nagin D (2009) Model uncertainty and the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Am Law Econ Rev 11:335–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dezhbakhsh H, Rubin P (2011) From the “econometrics of capital punishment” to the “capital punishment” of econometrics: on the use and abuse of sensitivity analysis. Appl Econ 43(25):3655–3670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dezhbakhsh H, Rubin P, Shepherd J (2003) Does capital punishment have a deterrent effect? New evidence from postmoratorium panel data. Am Law Econ Rev 5:344–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donohue J, Wolfers J (2005) Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate. Stanford Law Rev 58:791–846Google Scholar
  10. Doppelhofer G (2008) Model averaging. In: Durlauf S, Blume L (eds) New Palgrave dictionary of economics, revised edition. Palgrave MacMillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Draper D (1995) Assessment and propagation of model uncertainty. J R Stat Soc B 57:45–70Google Scholar
  12. Durlauf S, Navarro S, Rivers D (2010) Understanding aggregate crime regressions. J Econom 158:306–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehrlich I (1975) The deterrent effect of capital punishment: a question of life and death. Am Econ Rev 65:397–417Google Scholar
  14. Eicher T, Lenkoski A, Raftery A (2009) Bayesian model averaging and endogeneity under model uncertainty: an application to development determinants. Working paper, University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. Heckman J (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1):153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heckman J (2000) Causal parameters and policy analysis in economics: a twentieth century retrospective. Quart J Econ 115(1):45–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heckman J (2005) The scientific model of causality. Sociol Methodol 35:1–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heckman J, Vytlacil E (2007) Econometric evaluation of social programs, part II: using the marginal treatment effect to organize alternative econometric estimators to evaluate social programs, and to forecast their effects in new environments. In: Heckman J, Leamer E (eds) Handbook of econometrics, vol. 6. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. Heckman J, Schmierer D, Urzua S (2010) Testing the correlated random coefficient model. J Econom 158:177–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoeting J, Madigan D, Raftery A, Volinsky C (1999) Bayesian model averaging: a tutorial. Stat Sci 14:382–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leamer E (1978) Specification searches. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Leamer E (1983) Let’s take the con out of econometrics. Am Econ Rev 73(1):31–43Google Scholar
  23. Mocan N, Gittings R (2003) Getting off death row: commuted sentences and the deterrent effect of capital punishment. J Law Econ 46(2):453–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Navarro S (2008) Control Function. In: Durlauf S, Blume L (eds) New Palgrave dictionary of economics. Palgrave MacMillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Raftery A (1995) Bayesian model selection in social research (with discussion). Sociol Methodol 25:111–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raftery A, Madigan D, Hoeting J (1997) Bayesian model averaging for linear regression models. J Am Stat Assoc 92:179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shepherd J (2005) Deterrence versus brutalization: capital punishment’s differing impacts across states. Mich Law Rev 104:203–255Google Scholar
  28. Zimmerman P (2004) State executions, deterrence, and the incidence of murder. J Appl Econ 7:163–193Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.University of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations