Misapplications Reviews: The Capital Punishment Controversy: Part II

Arnold Barnett
Additional contact information
Arnold Barnett: Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

Interfaces, 1983, vol. 13, issue 5, 35-39

Abstract: In the first installment of this two-part series, I discussed some studies on the deterrent effect of the death penalty that I view as clearly unreliable. Here I will consider some other analyses that seem worthy of greater attention. That done, I'll move on to some general musings (broodings?) on what the capital punishment controversy tells us about the conduct of social science research.A whole host of social, demographic, and economic factors can cause homicide rates to differ over time and across regions. And given the historical rarity of executions, variations in their use would at most seem among the lesser causes of any differences observed. Thus, careful researchers on capital punishment have recognized that, unless the major influences on murder levels have been accurately identified and measured, there is little hope for any trustworthy answer to a question about deterrence.

Keywords: government; judicial/legal: crime (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1983
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.13.5.35 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:inm:orinte:v:13:y:1983:i:5:p:35-39

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Interfaces from INFORMS Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Asher ().