not provide a logical basis for linking the statistical findings back to a state’s capital punishment sanction regime. Suppose, for example, that an execution event study was conducted that provided credible evidence that the execution either increased or decreased homicides that are eligible for capital punishment. Such a study would not provide the basis for altering the sanction regime to either increase or decrease the number of executions because it would not be informative about what aspect of the regime caused the execution to have the effect identified by the study.

In summary, the committee finds that adequate justifications have not been provided to demonstrate that the various time-series-based studies of capital punishment speak to the deterrence question. It is thus immaterial whether the studies purport to find evidence in favor or against deterrence. They do not rise to the level of credible evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment as a determinant of aggregate homicide rates and are not useful in evaluating capital punishment as a public policy.

REFERENCES

Ash, R.B., and Gardner, M.F. (1975). Topics in Stochastic Processes. New York: Academic Press.

Bailey, W.C. (1998). Deterrence, brutalization, and the death penalty: Another reexamination of Oklahoma’s return to capital punishment. Criminology, 36(4), 711-733.

Becker, G.S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169-217.

Brennan, M. (2008). Capital asset pricing model. In S.N. Durlauf and L. Blume (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (revised ed., vol. 1, pp. 641-648). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Charles, K.K., and Durlauf, S. (in press). Pitfalls in the use of time series methods to study deterrence and capital punishment. Submitted to Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28.

Cloninger, D.O. (1992). Capital punishment and deterrence: A portfolio approach. Applied Economics, 24(6), 635-645.

Cloninger, D.O., and Marchesini, R. (2001). Execution and deterrence: A quasi-controlled group experiment. Applied Economics, 33(5), 569-576.

Cloninger, D.O., and Marchesini, R. (2006). Execution moratoriums, commutations and deterrence: The case of Illinois. Applied Economics, 38(9), 967-973.

Cochran, J.K., Chamlin, M.B., and Seth, M. (1994). Deterrence or brutalization—An impact assessment of Oklahoma’s return to capital-punishment. Criminology, 32(1), 107-134.

Donohue, J.J., and Wolfers, J. (2005). Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate. Stanford Law Review, 58(3), 791-845.

Durlauf, S., and Nagin, D. (2011). The deterrent effect of imprisonment. In P.J. Cook, J. Ludwig, and J. McCrary (Eds.), Controlling Crime: Strategies and Tradeoffs (pp. 43-94). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (2011). Uniform Crime Reports: Estimated Murder Rate in Texas 1960-2009. Available: http://www.ucrdatatools.gov [December 2011].

Granger, C.W.J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37(3), 424-438.

Grogger, J. (1990). The deterrent effect of capital punishment: An analysis of daily homicide counts. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85(410), 295-303.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement