|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
DETERRENCE
AND THE
DEATH PENALTY
Committee on Deterrence and the Death Penalty
Daniel S. Nagin and John V. Pepper, Editors
Committee on Law and Justice
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS • 500 Fifth Street, NW • Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Govern-
ing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the
councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineer-
ing, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for
the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropri-
ate balance.
This study was supported by Grant Number 2010-IJ-CX-0018 from the National
Institute of Justice, Grant Number TRF09-01115 from the Tides Foundation, and
the Proteus Action League (grant not numbered). Any opinions, findings, conclu-
sions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that pro-
vided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-25416-8
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-25416-7
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202)
334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2012). Deterrence and the Death
Penalty. Committee on Deterrence and the Death Penalty, Daniel S. Nagin and John
V. Pepper, Eds. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
OCR for page R3
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society
of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to
the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.
Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Acad-
emy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific
and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy
of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter
of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding en-
gineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members,
sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the
federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineer-
ing programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research,
and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is presi-
dent of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of
Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in
the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Insti-
tute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its
congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own
initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V.
Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sci-
ences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the
Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government.
Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the
Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy
of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to
the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The
Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine.
Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively,
of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
COMMITTEE ON DETERRENCE AND THE DEATH PENALTY
DANIEL S. NAGIN (Chair), H. John Heinz III College, Carnegie Mellon
University
KERWIN K. CHARLES, Harris School of Public Policy Studies,
University of Chicago
PHILIP J. COOK, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University
STEVEN N. DURLAUF, Department of Economics, University of
Wisconsin–Madison
AMELIA M. HAVILAND, H. John Heinz III College, Carnegie Mellon
University
GERARD E. LYNCH, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
CHARLES F. MANSKI, Department of Economics, Northwestern
University
JAMES Q. WILSON, School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University, and
Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy, Boston
College
JANE L. ROSS, Study Director
JOHN V. PEPPER, Consultant
KEIKO ONO, Senior Program Associate
CAROL HAYES, Christine Mirzayan Fellow
BARBARA BOYD, Administrative Associate
v
OCR for page R6
COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE
2012
JEREMY TRAVIS (Chair), John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City
University of New York
CARL C. BELL, Community Mental Health Council, Inc., Chicago, IL
JOHN J. DONOHUE, III, Stanford Law School, Stanford University
MARK A.R. KLEIMAN, Department of Public Policy, University of
California, Los Angeles
GARY LAFREE, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice,
University of Maryland
JANET L. LAURITSEN, Department of Criminology and Criminal
Justice, University of Missouri-St. Louis
GLENN C. LOURY, Department of Economics, Brown University
CHARLES F. MANSKI, Department of Economics, Northwestern
University
TERRIE E. MOFFITT, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience,
Duke University
DANIEL S. NAGIN, H. John Heinz III College, Carnegie Mellon
University
RUTH D. PETERSON, Criminal Justice Research Center, Ohio State
University
ANNE MORRISON PIEHL, Department of Economics and Program in
Criminal Justice, Rutgers University
DANIEL B. PRIETO, Public Sector Strategy & Innovation, IBM Global
Business Services, Washington, DC
ROBERT J. SAMPSON, Department of Sociology, Harvard University
DAVID WEISBURD, Department of Criminology, Law and Society,
George Mason University
CATHY SPATZ WIDOM, Psychology Department, John Jay College of
Criminal Justice, City University of New York
PAUL K. WORMELI, Integrated Justice Information Systems,
Ashburn, VA
JANE L. ROSS, Director
BARBARA BOYD, Administrative Associate
vi
OCR for page R7
IN MEMORIAM
James Q. Wilson
1931-2012
“I’ve tried to follow the facts wherever they land.”
This report is dedicated to James Q. Wilson for
his long service to the National Research Council,
his influential career of scholarship and public
service, and his unblinking commitment to the
principle that science requires us to interpret
the evidence as it is, not as we want it to be.
vii
OCR for page R8
OCR for page R9
Preface
M
ore than three decades ago, in Deterrence and Incapacitation:
Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates,
the National Research Council (NRC) (1978, p. 9) concluded
that “available studies provide no useful evidence on the deterrent effect
of capital punishment.” That report was issued 2 years after the Supreme
Court decision in Gregg v. Georgia ended a 4-year moratorium on execu-
tion in the United States. In the 35 years since the publication of that report,
especially in recent years, a considerable number of post-Gregg studies have
attempted to estimate the effect of the legal status or the actual implemen-
tation of the death penalty on homicide rates. Those studies have reached
widely varying conclusions.
Against this background, the NRC formed the Committee on Deter-
rence and the Death Penalty to address whether the available evidence
provides a reasonable basis for drawing conclusions about the magnitude of
the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates. At a workshop on April
28-29, 2011, workshop papers commissioned by the committee (which will
be published in a special issue of the Journal of Quantitative Criminology)
were presented and discussed by their authors: Robert J. Apel, University at
Albany, State University of New York; Aaron Chalfin, University of Califor-
nia, Berkeley; Chao Fu, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Justin McCrary,
University of California, Berkeley; Salvador Navarro, University of Western
Ontario, Ontario, Canada; John V. Pepper, University of Virginia; and
Steven Raphael, University of California, Berkeley. The workshop also
included comments on the presentations by Jeffrey Grogger, University
of Chicago; Guido Imbens, Harvard University; Kenneth C. Land, Duke
ix
OCR for page R10
x PREFACE
University; Christopher Sims, Princeton University; and Justin Wolfers,
University of Pennsylvania.
The committee appreciates the contributions of these presenters and
those who commented on them to the development of its report. In ad-
dition, John V. Pepper provided invaluable assistance to the committee
throughout its deliberations. The work of staff members from the Com-
mittee on Law and Justice of the NRC facilitated the committee’s work in
many ways. Thanks are due to Jane L. Ross, study director; Keiko Ono,
senior program associate; Carol Hayes, Christine Mirzayan fellow; and
Barbara Boyd, administrative coordinator.
Many individuals at the NRC assisted the committee. We thank Kirsten
Sampson-Snyder, who shepherded the report through the NRC review pro-
cess, Eugenia Grohman, who edited the draft report, and Yvonne Wise, for
processing the report through final production.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for
their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with pro-
cedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose
of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that
will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible
and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity,
evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments
and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the
deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of
this report: John Donohue, III, Stanford Law School, Stanford University;
Andrew Gelman, Department of Statistics and Department of Political Sci-
ence, Columbia University; Kenneth C. Land, Department of Sociology,
Duke University; Candice Odgers, School of Social Ecology, University of
California, Irvine; Ricardo Reis, Department of Economics, Columbia Uni-
versity; Greg Ridgeway, RAND Safety and Justice Program, RAND Center
on Quality Policing, RAND Corporation; Robert J. Sampson, Department
of Sociology, Harvard University; Dick Thornburgh, Counsel, K&L Gates,
LLP, and former Attorney General of the United States; Petra E. Todd,
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania; and Michael Tonry,
School of Law, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive
comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions
or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its
release. The review of this report was overseen by Gary LaFree, National
Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, Univer-
sity of Maryland, and John T. Monahan, University of Virginia Law School.
Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an
independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with
institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully con-
OCR for page R11
xi
PREFACE
sidered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with
the authoring committee and the institution.
This report is dedicated to James Q. Wilson. Jim was a valued member
of this and many other NRC committees on which he served over his long
and influential career. Jim’s contributions to scholarship and public service
will stand as enduring testimony to the power of his intellect. He was a
quiet but forceful proponent for balanced and clear-minded assessment of
the evidence. I first met Jim in my role as a staff member of the 1978 NRC
committee that resulted in report Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimat-
ing the Effect of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates. I was deeply impressed
by the clarity of his thought and gift for communication. He served as a
role model for me ever since. I was thus especially honored that he agreed
to serve on this committee, which was greatly aided by his constructive
participation throughout our deliberations.
Daniel S. Nagin, Chair
Committee on Deterrence and the Death Penalty
OCR for page R12
OCR for page R13
Contents
SUMMARY 1
Shortcomings in Existing Research, 4
Specification of the Sanction Regime for Homicide, 4
Potential Murderers’ Perceptions of and Responses to
Capital Punishment, 5
Strong and Unverifiable Assumptions, 6
Next Steps for Research, 7
References, 8
1 INTRODUCTION 9
The Current Debate, 9
Committee Charge and Scope of Work, 11
References, 14
2 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE POST-GREGG ERA 15
Executions and Death Sentences Over Time, 15
Use of the Death Penalty, 20
References, 26
3 DETERMINING THE DETERRENT EFFECT OF
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: KEY ISSUES 27
Concepts of Deterrence, 28
Sanction Regimes, 32
xiii
OCR for page R14
xiv CONTENTS
Data Issues, 36
Variations in Murder Rates, 37
Reciprocal Effects Between Homicide Rates and
Sanction Regimes, 41
Summary, 43
References, 44
4 PANEL STUDIES 47
Panel Studies Reviewed, 48
Methods Used: Overview, 48
The Studies, Their Characteristics, and the Effects Found, 49
Specifying the Expected Cost of Committing a Capital
Homicide: f(Zit), 54
Model Assumptions, 63
Benefits of Random Assignment, 64
Fixed Effect Regression Model, 65
Instrumental Variables, 66
Homogeneity, 68
Conclusion, 70
References, 71
5 TIME-SERIES STUDIES 75
Basic Conceptual Issues, 76
Execution Event Studies, 76
Studies of Deviations from Fitted Trends, 78
Vector Autoregressions, 82
Evidence Under Existing Criminal Sanction Regimes, 82
Granger Causality and Causality as Treatment Response, 86
Choice of Variables in VAR Studies, 88
Inferences Under Alternative Sanction Regimes, 89
Event Studies, 90
Time-Series Regressions, 92
Cross-Polity Comparisons, 94
Conclusions, 97
References, 99
6 CHALLENGES TO IDENTIFYING DETERRENT EFFECTS 101
Data on Sanction Regimes, 104
Perceptions of Sanction Risks, 105
Measurement of Perceptions, 107
Inference on Perceptions from Homicide Rates Following
Executions, 110
OCR for page R15
xv
CONTENTS
Identifying Effects: Feedbacks and Unobserved Confounders, 111
Feedback Effects, 111
Omitted Variables, 112
The Equilibrium Effect, 113
Addressing Model Uncertainty with Weaker Assumptions, 115
Model Averaging, 116
Partial Identification, 119
References, 121
Appendix: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff 125
OCR for page R16
