NCJ Number
138233
Journal
Loyola University of Los Angeles Law Review Volume: 23 Issue: 1 Dated: (November 1989) Pages: 29-44
Date Published
1989
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This analysis of Stephen Layson's conclusion that each execution deters up to 18 homicides emphasizes problems with the data and methodology used by Layson and discusses how Layson's conclusion has been uncritically accepted and misapplied.
Abstract
Layson used an econometric approach, identifying a deterrent element by measuring the statistical association between the risk of execution and the homicide rate. However, the data he used regarding persons charged and persons convicted are useless for research purposes and were deleted from the Uniform Crime Reporting program in 1978 because of their poor quality. In addition, much of the negative association between the risk of execution and the rate of homicide is a result of the period after 1957 when, coincidentally, executions decreased while homicides increased, but not necessarily because of each other. Other problems include negative bias and aggregation bias. Nevertheless, Layson's findings have been misinterpreted and used to exaggerate the deterrent effect of the death penalty even beyond what Layson concluded. Therefore, Layson's findings add nothing to our understanding despite his technical skill; the application of econometric techniques to deterrence is as arbitrary as the application of the death penalty and offers nothing to guide policy. Footnotes and appended table and figures