Pitfalls in the Use of Time Series Methods to Study Deterrence and Capital Punishment
Tóm tắt
Evaluate the use of various time series methods to measure the deterrence effect of capital punishment. The analysis of the time series approach to deterrence is conducted at two levels. First, the mathematical foundations of time series methods are described and the link between the time series properties of aggregate homicide and execution series and individual decision making is developed. Second, individual studies are examined for logical consistency. The analysis concludes that time series methods used to study the deterrence effects of capital punishment suffer from fundamental limitations and fail to provide credible evidence. The common limitation of these studies is their lack of attention to identification problems. Suggestions are made as to directions for future work that may be able to mitigate the weaknesses of the current literature. Time series studies of capital punishment suffer from sufficiently serious identification problems that existing empirical findings are compatible with either the presence or the absence of a deterrent effect.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Angrist J, Kuersteiner G (2011) Causal effects of monetary policy shocks: semiparametric conditional independence tests with multinomial propensity score. Rev Econ Stat 93(3):725–747
Arendt H (1977) Eichmann in Jerusalem. New York: Penguin Books. (Revision of 1963 1st edn)
Ash R, Gardner M (1975) Topics in stochastic processes. Academic Press, Orlando
Bailey W (1998) Deterrence, brutalization and the death penalty: another reexamination of Oklahoma’s return to capital punishment. Criminology 36:711–733
Becker G (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic analysis. J Polit Econ 78:169–217
Becsi Z (1999) Economics and crime in the states. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Econ Rev Q1:38–49
Blumstein A, Cohen J, Nagin D (1978) Deterrence an incapacitation: estimating the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates, report of the panel on deterrence and incapacitation, National Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington DC
Cloninger D (1992) Capital punishment and deterrence: a portfolio approach. Appl Econ 24:645–655
Cloninger D, Marchesini R (2001) Execution and deterrence: a quasi-controlled group experiment. Appl Econ 33:569–576
Cloninger D, Marchesini R (2006) Execution moratoriums, commutations, and deterrence: the case of Illinois. Appl Econ 38:967–973
Cochran J, Chamblin M, Seth M (1994) Deterrence or brutalization? an impact assessment of Oklahoma’s return to capital punishment. Criminology 32:107–134
Dezhbakhsh H, Rubin P, Shepherd J (2003) Does capital punishment have a deterrent effect? new evidence from postmoratorium panel data. Am Law Econ Rev 5:344–376
Donohue J, Wolfers J (2005) Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate. Stanf Law Rev 58:791–846
Durlauf S, Nagin D (2010) The deterrent effect of imprisonment. In: Cook P, Ludwig J, McCrary J (eds) Controlling crime: strategies and payoffs. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (forthcoming)
Durlauf S, Johnson P, Temple J (2006) Growth econometrics. In: Aghion P, Durlauf S (eds) Handbook of economic growth. Amsterdam: North Holland
Durlauf S, Kourtellos A, Tan CM (2008) Are any growth theories robust?. Econ J 118:329–346
Durlauf S, Navarro S, Rivers D (2010) Understanding aggregate crime regressions. J Econ 158:306–317
Ehrlich I (1975a) The deterrent effect of capital punishment: a question of life and death. Am Econ Rev 65:397–417
Ehrlich I (1975b) Deterrence, evidence, and inference. Yale Law J 85:2209–2227
Granger C (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37:424–438
Grogger J (1990) The deterrent effect of capital punishment: an analysis of daily homicide counts. J Am Stat Assoc 85:295–303
Hamilton J (1994) Time series analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Hjalmarsson R (2009) Does capital punishment have a “local” deterrent effect on homicides? Am Law Econ Rev 11:310–324
Kessler D, Levitt S (1999) Using sentence enhancements to distinguish between deterrence and incapacitation. J Law Econ 42:343–363
Land K, Teske R, Zheng H (2009) The short run effects of executions on homicides: deterrence, displacement or both? Criminology 47:501–536
Leamer E (1985) Vector autoregressions for causal inference? Carnegie-Rochester Conf Ser Public Policy 22:255–303
Lee D, McCrary J (2009) The deterrent effect of prison: dynamic theory and evidence. Department of Economics, Princeton University (unpublished manuscript)
Leeper E, Zha T (2003) Modest policy interventions. J Monet Econ 50:1673–1700
Leeper E, Sims C, Zha T (1996) What does monetary policy do? (with discussion). Brookings Pap Econ Act 2:1–78
Leeper E, Walker T, Yang S-C (2008) Fiscal foresight: analytics and econometrics. NBER Working Paper no. 2008
Liebman J, Fagan J, West V (2000) Capital attrition: error rates in capital cases, 1973–1995. Texas Law Rev 78:1839–1861
Lucas R (1976) Econometric policy evaluation: a critique. Carnegie-Rochester Ser Public Policy 1:19–46
Marvell T, Moody C (1994) Prison population growth and crime reduction. J Quant Criminol 10:109–140
Phillips D (1980) The deterrent effect of capital punishment: new evidence on an old controversy. Am J Sociol 86:139–148
Phillips D (1982) Deterrence and the death penalty: reply to Zeisel. Am J Sociol 88:170–172
Roberts S (2001) The brother. Random House, New York
Sargent T (1987) Macroeconomic theory. Academic Press, San Diego
Sims C (1972) Money, income, and causality. Am Econ Rev 62:540–552
Sims C (1980) Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica 48:1–48
Sims C (1982) Policy analysis with econometric models. Brookings Pap Econ Act 1:107–152
Sims C (1992) Interpreting the macroeconomic time series facts. Eur Econ Rev 36:975–1000
Spelman W (2000) What recent studies do (and don’t) tell us about imprisonment and crime. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research vol. 27. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Stolzenberg L, D’Alessio S (2004) Capital punishment, execution publicity, and murder in Houston, Texas. J Crim Law Criminol 94:351–379
Zeisel H (1982) Disagreement over the evaluation of a controlled experiment. Am J Sociol 88:378–389
Zimring F, Fagan J, Johnson D (2010) Executions, deterrence, and homicide: a tale of two cities. J Empir Leg Stud 7:1–29