Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect?  New Evidence from Post-moratorium Panel Data

Dezhbakhsh, Hashem; Rubin, Paul H.; Shepherd, Joanna

doi:10.2139/ssrn.259538

Cited by 32 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For this discussion we focus on the empirical study of deterrent effects by Dezhbakhsh et al (2003); we denote this paper as DRS. We choose this paper both because it has been quite influential in resurrecting the capital punishment/deterrence literature and because it has recently come under criticism by Donohue and Wolfers (2005), denoted as DW.…”

Section: Application To Capital Punishment: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We report regression results based on the preferred specification employed by Dezhbakhsh et al (2003). 5 DRS assume that the aggregate murder rate can be explained by a linear and separable function of various controls.…”

Section: Application To Capital Punishment: Reestimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One aspect is predictive, as illustrated by the literature that attempts to link crime to unemployment. A second aspect focuses on policy evaluation: prominent current controversies involving the use of aggregate regressions include the deterrent effect of shall-issue concealed weapons legislation (Lott and Mustard, 1997;Lott, 1998;Black and Nagin, 1998;Ayers and Donohue, 2003;Plassmann and Whitley, 2003), the deterrent effect of capital punishment (Dezhbakhsh and Rubin, 2007;Dezhbakhsh et al, 2003;Donohue and Wolfers, 2005;Katz et al, 2001;Gittings, 2001, 2006) and perhaps most controversially, the effects of liberalized abortion laws on crime (Donohue and Levitt, 2001Foote and Goetz, 2008;Joyce, 2004;Lott and Whitley, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Section 4 discusses the analysis of policy counterfactuals. Section 5 discusses these general arguments in the context of a prominent paper in the capital punishment and deterrence literature, Dezhbakhsh et al (2003). The empirical importance of some of the assumptions is demonstrated in Section 6.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Understanding aggregate crime regressions

Durlauf

Navarro

Rivers

2010

Journal of Econometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Application To Capital Punishment: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Application To Capital Punishment: Reestimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Understanding aggregate crime regressions

Durlauf

Navarro

Rivers

2010

Journal of Econometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…3 Fagan et al (2006) provides a list of recent studies claiming such effects. Examples include Mocan and Gittings (2003), Shepherd (2004), Dezhbakhsh et al (2003), Shepherd (2006), andZimmerman (2004). 4 See Katz et al (2003) for further discussion regarding this empirical dilemma.…”

Section: Death Penalty and Deterrencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Deterrent Effect of Death Penalty Eligibility: Evidence from the Adoption of Child Murder Eligibility Factors

Frakes

Harding

2009

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We draw on within-state variations in the reach of capital punishment statutes between 1977 and 2004 to identify the deterrent effects associated with capital eligibility. Focusing on the most prevalent eligibility expansion, we estimate that the adoption of a child murder factor is associated with an approximately 20% reduction in the homicide rate of youth victims. Eligibility expansions may enhance deterrence by (1) paving the way for more executions and (2) providing prosecutors with greater leverage to secure enhanced non-capital sentences. While executions themselves are rare, this latter channel is likely to be triggered fairly regularly, providing a reasonable basis for a general deterrent response.

show abstract

Marginal Deterrence and Multiple Murders

Ekelund

Jackson

Ressler

et al. 2006

Southern Economic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines empirically the state‐level impact of capital punishment on multiple murder rates for the period 1995‐1999. In baseline tests—tests employing mixed panel data and using an estimation technique combining aspects of both fixed‐ and random‐effects models—we show that executions reduce the single murder rate and that the use of electrocution reduces the murder rate beyond that resulting from lethal injection. These results are not unique. The unique finding of our analysis is that multiple murders are not deterred by execution in any form, quite possibly because the marginal cost of murders after the first is approximately zero. Finally, we offer a brief historical analysis of how the principle of marginal deterrence has been used and suggest how it might be applied in the matter of multiple murders.

show abstract

Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Post-moratorium Panel Data

Cited by 32 publications

References 43 publications

Understanding aggregate crime regressions

Understanding aggregate crime regressions

The Deterrent Effect of Death Penalty Eligibility: Evidence from the Adoption of Child Murder Eligibility Factors

Marginal Deterrence and Multiple Murders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About