Skip Navigation



American Law and Economics Review Advance Access published online on April 15, 2009
American Law and Economics Review, doi:10.1093/aler/ahp003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zimmerman, P. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Law and Economics Association. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Statistical Variability and the Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty

Paul R. Zimmerman

U.S. Federal Trade Commission

Send correspondence to: Paul R. Zimmerman, U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Economics, Antitrust I, 601 New Jersey Avenue NW, Rm. 8103, Washington, DC 20580, USA; E-mail: pzimmerman{at}ftc.gov.

JEL Classification: K42


  Abstract

In a recent paper Donohue and Wolfers (D&W) critique a number of modern econometric studies purporting to demonstrate a deterrent effect of capital punishment. This paper focuses on D&W's central criticism of a study by Zimmerman; specifically, that the estimated standard errors on the subset of his regressions that suggest a deterrent effect are downward biased due to autocorrelation. The method that D&W rely upon to adjust Zimmerman's standard errors is, however, potentially problematic, and is also only one of several methods to address the presence of autocorrelation. To this end, Zimmerman's original models are subjected to several parametric corrections for autocorrelation, all of which result in statistically significant estimates that are of the same magnitude to his original estimates. The paper also presents results obtained from an alternative model whose specification is motivated on theoretical and statistical grounds. These latter results also provide some evidence supporting a deterrent effect. Finally, the paper discusses D&W's use of randomization testing and their contention that executions are not carried out often enough to plausibly deter murders.

The author thanks Bruce Benson, Larry Kenny, John Lott, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper and the editor (John Pepper) for his generous advice and guidance. Elisabeth Murphy provided excellent research assistance. The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of the FTC, its commissioners, or any other staff. The usual caveat applies.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.