What Do Panel Studies Tell Us About a Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment? A Critique of the Literature
- 2.6k Downloads
We provide a critical review of empirical research on the deterrent effect of capital punishment that makes use of state and, in some instances, county-level, panel data.
We present the underlying behavioral model that presumably informs the specification of panel data regressions, outline the typical model specification employed, discuss current norms regarding “best-practice” in the analysis of panel data, and engage in a critical review.
The connection between the theoretical reasoning underlying general deterrence and the regression models typically specified in this literature is tenuous. Many of the papers purporting to find strong effects of the death penalty on state-level murder rates suffer from basic methodological problems: weak instruments, questionable exclusion restrictions, failure to control for obvious factors, and incorrect calculation of standard errors which in turn has led to faulty statistical inference. The lack of variation in the key underlying explanatory variables and the heavy influence exerted by a few observations in state panel data regressions is a fundamental problem for all panel data studies of this question, leading to overwhelming model uncertainty.
We find the recent panel literature on whether there is a deterrent effect of the death penalty to be inconclusive as a whole, and in many cases uninformative. Moreover, we do not see additional methodological tools that are likely to overcome the multiple challenges that face researchers in this domain, including the weak informativeness of the data, a lack of theory on the mechanisms involved, and the likely presence of unobserved confounders.
KeywordsPanel studies Death penalty Deterrence Critical research review
We would like to acknowledge the analytic contributions of Dan Winger, MS, and Wenhao Xia, MS.
- Angrist J, Pischke J (2009) Mostly harmless econometrics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Bound J, Jaeger DA, Baker RM (1995) Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. J Am Stat Assoc 90:443–450Google Scholar
- Dezhbakhsh H, Rubin PH (2010) From the ‘Econometrics of Capital Punishment’ to the ‘Capital Punishment of Econometrics’: On the Use and Abuse of Sensitivity Analysis. Appl Econ (forthcoming). Available in advance here: http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/420130_770849120_928446184.pdf
- Donohue JJ, Wolfers J (2005) Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate. Stanford Law Rev 58(3):791–845Google Scholar
- Ehrlich I (1975) Capital punishment and deterrence: a question of life or death. Am Econ Rev 65(3):397–417Google Scholar
- Fagan J, Zimring FE, Geller A (2006) Capital punishment and capital murder: market share and the deterrent effects of the death penalty. Texas Law Rev 84(7):1803–1867Google Scholar
- Mocan HN, Gittings RK (2010) The Impact of Incentives on Human Behavior: Can We Make it Disappear?: The Case of the Death Penalty. In: Di Tella R, Edwards S, Schargrodsky E (eds) The economics of crime; lessons for and from Latin America. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Snell T (2010) Capital punishment in the United States. Bureau of Justice StatisticsGoogle Scholar
- Stock J, Yogo H (2005) “Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In: Identification and inference for econometric models: essays in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 109–120Google Scholar
- Zimmerman PR (2004) State executions, deterrence, and the incidence of murder. J Appl Econ 7:163–193Google Scholar