When I wrote about David Frum's voodoo criminology in support of the death penalty, I didn't mention any of the recent research that purports to find a deterrent effect for the death penalty because Frum didn't cite it. That research has always seemed suspect to me -- since a very small fraction of murderers are executed in America, it seems unlikely that any effect could be detected above the noise of all the other factors that affect the crime rate. Now a paper by Donohue and Wolfers has been published that is absolutely devastating to the papers that found deterrence. Donohue and Wolfers reanalyze the data used in those papers and found that the deterrence effect goes away if you look at it sideways. For example, one of the most recently touted papers found that each execution deterred 18 murders. However, the description of the model used in that paper was slightly inaccurate. When D&W followed that description the result was that each execution caused 18 murders. Since we don't know which model is the correct one, the data just does not tell whether the death penalty deters or not. Similar problems occur with the other papers that found an effect.
Also on the death penalty: Steve Levitt catches Paul Rubin misrepresenting Levitt's research on the death penalty in Senate testimony.
Deltoid
Death Penalty
When I wrote about David Frum's voodoo criminology in support of the death penalty, I didn't mention any of the recent research that purports to find a deterrent effect for the death penalty because Frum didn't cite it. That research...
Search
Profile
Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Recent Posts
- Robert Manne on Monckton's plan for the Australian media
- February 2012 Open Thread
- More fraud from Pat Michaels
- The Australian's War on Science 76: Dad Jokes
- January 2012 Open Thread
- Better late than never at The Australian
- Merry Christmas
- Keith Kloor's thinking on climate change
- Wegman one of The Scientist's top five science scandals
- The Australian's War on Science 75: Plimer vs Plimer
Recent Comments
- Peter on February 2012 Open Thread
- MikeH on February 2012 Open Thread
- Olaus Petri on February 2012 Open Thread
- John on February 2012 Open Thread
- Lotharsson on February 2012 Open Thread
- John on February 2012 Open Thread
- Robert Murphy on Jonas Thread
- chek on Jonas Thread
- Wow on February 2012 Open Thread
- Lionel A on February 2012 Open Thread
Categories
- Ask a ScienceBlogger
- Brignell
- CFCs and ozone
- DDT
- Fumento
- Global Warming
- Gregg Easterbrook is an idiot
- Iraq
- LancetIraq
- Lott
- Milloy
- Open Thread
- Roy Spencer
- Skeptics Circle
- The War on Science
- academia
- astroturf
- bingo
- computers
- creationism
- criminology
- economics
- free speech
- funny
- guns
- maths
- meet up
- meta
- personal
- politics
- quackery
- random
- reviews
- statistics
- stupidity
- surveys
- world
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
Links
Blogroll
- Angry Bear
- Atmoz
- Backseat driving
- Barista
- Climate denial crock
- Brad Delong
- Brave New Climate
- Bug Girls' Blog
- Climate Change
- Climate Feedback
- Climate Progress
- Climate Shifts
- Climate Sight
- Club Troppo
- Crooked Timber
- David Friedman
- Deep Climate
- Eschaton
- Fafblog
- FiveThirtyEight
- Freakonomics blog
- Greenfyre's
- Gristmill
- Groklaw
- Hot Topic
- Hit and Run
- International Journal of Inactivism
- James' Empty Blog
- John Quiggin
- Jon Swift
- Kevin Drum
- Larvatus Prodeo
- Logical Science
- Making Light
- Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub
- More Grumbine Science
- Nexus 6
- Notes from the Lounge
- Oliver Willis
- Only In It For The Gold
- Open Mind
- Paul Krugman
- Political Animal
- Quark Soup
- Rabett Run
- RealClimate
- Sadly, No!
- TBogg
- The Loom
- The Panda's Thumb
- The Poor Man
- The Reality-based Community
- The Volokh Conspiracy
- Think Progress
- TPM Cafe
- Unqualified Offerings
- Watching the Deniers
- AMK's Journal
- Andrew Norton
- Antony Loewenstein
- ArchPundit
- are you effin' kidding me?
- B and B
- Brian Linse
- Carnaby Fudge
- DeSmogBlog
- Detached Observer
- eRiposte
- Explananda
- Flop Eared Mule
- From a LAN Downunder
- Hoyden About Town
- Infothought
- John Fleck
- The Hard Sell
- Harry Clarke
- Known Unknowns
- Matt T
- Malaria Matters
- Mobjectivist
- Notional Slurry
- Opinion Dominion
- Penguin Unearthed
- Pro Bono Statistics
- Pro-science
- Psyche, Science, and Society
- Rants and Raves
- Say Uncle
- Section 15
- short notes: will brady's ruminations
- Skeptics' Circle
- skippy the bush kangaroo
- Some are Boojums
- Speedkill
- spiceblog
- Stephen Gloor
- stoush.net
- The Bartlett Diaries
- The Ethical Werewolf
- The Huffington Post
- The Myron Ebell Climate
- The Post-Normal Times
- The Virtual Stoa
- This Space For Rent
- Wis[s]e Words
« Koufax voting | Main | Why you should study statistics »
Death Penalty
Category: criminology
Posted on: March 6, 2006 12:33 PM, by Tim Lambert


Comments
It's not even entirely clear to me why anyone would prefer life in prison to death. And if that preference did exist, would it really be sufficient to make the difference?
Posted by: David Roberts | March 6, 2006 5:42 PM
"I didn't mention any of the recent research that purports to find a deterrent effect for the death penalty because Frum didn't cite it."
What a very odd thing to say. Frum wrote: "So rare a punishment cannot qualify as a deterrent." Which you clearly agree with, since you echo his point.
Oh, any chance of a correction on that earlier post, by the way? Or at least a clarification? You know, about the UK crime survey you claim proves a decline in all crime despite not including rape, murder, crimes against kids, drug dealing, and so on?
Posted by: tim | March 6, 2006 8:26 PM
The question of death penalty is like abortion, it's an ideological question and studies like that are pretty irrelevant.
Posted by: Roman Werpachowski | March 6, 2006 9:16 PM
speaking of odd things to say, frum's comment itself is odd, given two paragraphs later he says:
"If societies want to wind back crime, however, they need to begin by sending a clear message that the sheriff is back in town - that crime won't be tolerated and will be punished to the full extent of the law. And nothing broadcasts that message like restoration of the most extreme punishment."
i may not be an esteemed editor of the bulletin, but that sounds to me an awful lot like saying "the death penalty is a deterrent", only not saying it in those words. it's almost as if frum knows he won't be taken seriously if he explicitly says "the death penalty is a deterrent", but wants to make the point regardless. now why would he do that?*
(*aside from his being a dishonest hack.)
Posted by: snuh | March 6, 2006 10:20 PM
"And nothing broadcasts that message like restoration of the most extreme punishment."
One could justify nastier things then just lethal injection, this way.
Posted by: Roman Werpachowski | March 6, 2006 10:36 PM
The question of death penalty is like abortion, it's an ideological question and studies like that are pretty irrelevant.I'll second that.
Posted by: Ben | March 7, 2006 1:18 AM
You know, about the UK crime survey you claim proves a decline in all crime despite not including rape, murder, crimes against kids, drug dealing, and so on
presuming that you are talking about the British Crime Survey, it does include sexual offences and homicides. Since it is a victim survey and nobody is a "victim" of drug dealing, it does not specifically ask about drugs offences, but it does contain a question about whether people perceive that there is a high incidence of drug dealing in their area. Crimes against under-16s are covered in a separate survey (the Offending, Crime and Justice Survey) and although there are issues with comparability, the trend is also down.
Are you really interested in the numbers? I don't think so.
Posted by: dsquared | March 7, 2006 4:21 AM
"The question of death penalty is like abortion, it's an ideological question and studies like that are pretty irrelevant."
That depends. Yes, it's a moral issue: death penalty will still be wrong even if it's effective in reducing crime/improving the economy/getting the "right" people elected/whatever. Same with abortion, I say. But that doesn't mean studies are worthless. For instance, a recent study in Norway found that a large percentage of women having abortions felt that their boyfriend forced them. That's important both to proponents (because they'd better think of something to do about it!) and opponents (because it illustrates nicely that legality affects what people can be forced to do - the same reason slavery is illegal, and legalized prostitution is problematic).
Posted by: Harald Korneliussen | March 7, 2006 5:34 AM
In my layman's experience, criminology experts going back to the dawn of modern criminology with the French Revolution, child-raising experts, and dog training experts almost all come to the same conclusion: unwanted behaviors are extinguished by the inevitability of detection and the speed of detection; the severity of punishment has a much less potent effect and lapses in the first two can't be made up by increasing severity.
The murderer isn't juggling whether it's worth risking the death penalty or life in prison if he gets caught; he's juggling the chances of getting away with it completely.
Posted by: z | March 7, 2006 10:05 AM
The matters would be clearer if we asked the right question: "is death penalty a stronger deterrent than life imprisonment?" instead of "is death penalty a deterrent?". All punishment deterrs.
Posted by: Roman Werpachowski | March 7, 2006 4:33 PM
Tim You might also find some interesting material in this submission by Columbia University's Professor Jeffrey Fagan to the New York State Assembly Standing Committee hearings on the future of capital punishment in the State of New York.
Posted by: Ken Parish | March 8, 2006 7:33 AM
Z, I remember coming across that, as well. The joke is that, if a small number of executions for a small proportion of illegal killings causes signficant cahnges in overall crime rates, criminals are not exhibiting economically rational behavior.
Posted by: Barry | March 8, 2006 5:52 PM
Tim, the link to the study doesn't work for me - could you check if it is correct? (alternative, could you send it to me? public@kristjanwager.dk)
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | March 28, 2006 9:40 AM
The URL changed on me. I have repaired the link.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | March 28, 2006 10:36 AM
Thanks
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | March 28, 2006 10:51 AM