Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Understanding Disparate Results
- 4.1k Downloads
Investigate how different model assumptions have driven the conflicting findings in the literature on the deterrence effect of capital punishment.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsCapital punishment Deterrence Model uncertainty
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.
- 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
- Brock W, Durlauf S, West K (2003) Policy evaluation in uncertain economic environments (with discussion). Brookings Pap Econ Act 1:235–322Google Scholar
- Donohue J, Wolfers J (2005) Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate. Stanford Law Rev 58:791–846Google Scholar
- Doppelhofer G (2008) Model averaging. In: Durlauf S, Blume L (eds) New Palgrave dictionary of economics, revised edition. Palgrave MacMillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Draper D (1995) Assessment and propagation of model uncertainty. J R Stat Soc B 57:45–70Google Scholar
- Ehrlich I (1975) The deterrent effect of capital punishment: a question of life and death. Am Econ Rev 65:397–417Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Leamer E (1978) Specification searches. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Leamer E (1983) Let’s take the con out of econometrics. Am Econ Rev 73(1):31–43Google Scholar
- Navarro S (2008) Control Function. In: Durlauf S, Blume L (eds) New Palgrave dictionary of economics. Palgrave MacMillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Shepherd J (2005) Deterrence versus brutalization: capital punishment’s differing impacts across states. Mich Law Rev 104:203–255Google Scholar
- Zimmerman P (2004) State executions, deterrence, and the incidence of murder. J Appl Econ 7:163–193Google Scholar