EconStor >
Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (IZA), Bonn >
IZA Discussion Papers, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (IZA) >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10419/33385
  

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDonohue, John J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorWolfers, Justinen_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-06-20en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-07-07T09:11:24Z-
dc.date.available2010-07-07T09:11:24Z-
dc.date.issued2006en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10419/33385-
dc.description.abstractDoes the death penalty save lives? A surge of recent interest in this question has yielded a series of papers purporting to show robust and precise estimates of a substantial deterrent effect of capital punishment. We assess the various approaches that have been used in this literature, testing the robustness of these inferences. Specifically, we start by assessing the time series evidence, comparing the history of executions and homicides in the United States and Canada, and within the United States, between executing and non-executing states. We analyze the effects of the judicial experiments provided by the Furman and Gregg decisions and assess the relationship between execution and homicide rates in state panel data since 1934. We then revisit the existing instrumental variables approaches and assess two recent state-specific execution moratoria. In each case we find that previous inferences of large deterrent effects based upon specific samples, functional forms, control variables, comparison groups, or IV strategies are extremely fragile and even small changes in specifications yield dramatically different results. The fundamental difficulty is that the death penalty - at least as it has been implemented in the United States - is applied so rarely that the number of homicides that it can plausibly have caused or deterred cannot be reliably disentangled from the large year-to-year changes in the homicide rate caused by other factors. As such, short samples and particular specifications may yield large but spurious correlations. We conclude that existing estimates appear to reflect a small and unrepresentative sample of the estimates that arise from alternative approaches. Sampling from the broader universe of plausible approaches suggests not just reasonable doubt about whether there is any deterrent effect of the death penalty, but profound uncertainty - even about its sign.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherIZA Bonnen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesIZA Discussion Papers 1949en_US
dc.subject.jelK14en_US
dc.subject.jelK42en_US
dc.subject.ddc330en_US
dc.subject.keywordexecutionen_US
dc.subject.keywordcapital punishmenten_US
dc.subject.keywordhomicideen_US
dc.subject.keywordcrimeen_US
dc.subject.keyworddeath penaltyen_US
dc.subject.keyworddifferences-in-differencesen_US
dc.subject.keywordmurderen_US
dc.subject.keyworddeterrenceen_US
dc.subject.stwStrafvollzugen_US
dc.subject.stwStrafeen_US
dc.subject.stwKriminalit├Ąten_US
dc.subject.stwUSAen_US
dc.subject.stwKanadaen_US
dc.titleUses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debateen_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US
dc.identifier.ppn507466179en_US
dc.rightshttp://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen-
Appears in Collections:IZA Discussion Papers, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (IZA)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
507466179.pdf306.61 kBAdobe PDF
No. of Downloads: Counter Stats
Show simple item record
Download bibliographical data as: BibTeX

Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.