Running head: DEATH SENTENCE 1 DEATH SENTENCE 7 The Death Sentence Brandy Vaughn GEN 499: General Education Instructor: Valencia Williams 17 October 2016 Death Sentence The only fact that people consider when making a statement that death sentence can deter crime is an assumption. In reality, however, the assumption is not considered as a fact. No one has ever provided evidence that death penalty is the deterrent. Many individuals presume that the fear that one will receive justice or punishment will deter murder. People would not do drugs or speed on highways in fear of being prosecuted if this were true. Human behavior and history have proven that rational human instinct is not deterrent to murder. If this did deter crime capital punishment would never be used. People would just inform one another of the law and never commit crimes. It is unfortunate that many individuals commit crime out of passion and do not mind about the effects. With or without death sentence individual still offend. The death sentence does not have conclusive evidence to be used as a tool to deter an individual from committing crimes. Annotated Bibliography Cohen-Cole, E., Durlauf, S., Fagan, J. & Nagin, D. (2009). Model Uncertainty and the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment. American Law and Economics Review, 11(2), 335-369. In this article, the authors examine the strength various types of evidence have in regards to the warning impact with the decease consequence. The authors focus their attention on different controversies and studies on the topic of capital punishment. The articles argue that the significant challenge with studies of the death penalty is the failure to thoroughly talk about the model uncertainty. The authors offer some recommendations on how people can address the model uncertainty. In terms of substance, the authors perform the various exercise to demonstrate how suggested methods can be utilized to address the distinction between studies on the issue of capital punishment. The outcome of the study is useful because it helps to explicate the main disagreement that exists in the empirical literature. The main purpose of the article is to offer a constructive approach that can be used to address the model uncertainty found in the literature of capital punishment. As discovered by the authors the aim of pre-emption trainings is not to recognize the greatest method of the execution procedure, however, is to talk the data that is embodied in a data established about dissuasion. Donohue, J. J., & Wolfers, J. (2009). Estimating the Impact of the Death Penalty on Murder. American Law and Economics Review, ahp024. The article explores the econometric issues that arise in efforts to estimate the effect brought about ...

1. Running head: DEATH SENTENCE
1
DEATH SENTENCE
7
The Death Sentence
Brandy Vaughn
GEN 499: General Education
Instructor: Valencia Williams
17 October 2016
Death Sentence
The only fact that people consider when making a statement that
death sentence can deter crime is an assumption. In reality,
however, the assumption is not considered as a fact. No one has
ever provided evidence that death penalty is the deterrent. Many
individuals presume that the fear that one will receive justice or
punishment will deter murder. People would not do drugs or
speed on highways in fear of being prosecuted if this were true.

2. Human behavior and history have proven that rational human
instinct is not deterrent to murder. If this did deter crime capital
punishment would never be used. People would just inform one
another of the law and never commit crimes. It is unfortunate
that many individuals commit crime out of passion and do not
mind about the effects. With or without death sentence
individual still offend. The death sentence does not have
conclusive evidence to be used as a tool to deter an individual
from committing crimes.
Annotated Bibliography
Cohen-Cole, E., Durlauf, S., Fagan, J. & Nagin, D. (2009).
Model Uncertainty and the Deterrent Effect of Capital
Punishment. American Law and Economics Review, 11(2), 335-
369.
In this article, the authors examine the strength various types of
evidence have in regards to the warning impact with the decease
consequence. The authors focus their attention on different
controversies and studies on the topic of capital punishment.
The articles argue that the significant challenge with studies of
the death penalty is the failure to thoroughly talk about the
model uncertainty. The authors offer some recommendations on
how people can address the model uncertainty. In terms of
substance, the authors perform the various exercise to
demonstrate how suggested methods can be utilized to address
the distinction between studies on the issue of capital
punishment. The outcome of the study is useful because it helps
to explicate the main disagreement that exists in the empirical
literature. The main purpose of the article is to offer a
constructive approach that can be used to address the model
uncertainty found in the literature of capital punishment. As

3. discovered by the authors the aim of pre-emption trainings is
not to recognize the greatest method of the execution procedure,
however, is to talk the data that is embodied in a data
established about dissuasion.
Donohue, J. J., & Wolfers, J. (2009). Estimating the Impact of
the Death Penalty on Murder. American Law and Economics
Review, ahp024.
The article explores the econometric issues that arise in efforts
to estimate the effect brought about by death penalty on murder.
The authors highlight choices that have to be made when it
comes to the specification of different board information tactics
which were consistently utilized to discourse the issue of death
penalty. Little clarification has been provided in regards to
data of probable slaughterers in regards to the danger of
killings. The article illustrates the sensitivity various estimates
have on the choices. Three 2SLS studies purport to discover
evidence of a deterrent effect while the most recent OLS board
statistics lessons have generated zero proof. None of the 2SLS
studies shows outcomes that are strong to gathering their
standard errors. The author considers the studies to be
unconvincing since all of them utilize a challenging
construction that is founded with regards to theoretically
inappropriate and failing restrained pseudo-possibilities which
could be created to apprehension the chief preemption
fundamentals of a nation's capital punishment administration.
The article also talks about the appropriateness of the unspoken
assumptions made by the 2SLS conveys OLS approximates of
the effect capital punishment would be prejudiced against a
discovery of deterrence.
Levitt, S. D., & Miles, T. J. (2007). Empirical Study of
Criminal Punishment. Handbook of law and economics, 1, 455-
495.
This article analyzes economists' empirical studies of criminal
justice and criminal punishment system. Empirical economists
have experimented predictions of criminal behavior utilizing
variation in anticipated criminal punishment. These individuals

4. have substantially progressed in identifying the impact of
punishment on crime by discovering new approaches to break
the simultaneity of criminal punishments and crime rates. The
recent empirical evidence offers support for the deterrence
model, however, it portrays that incapacitation can also
influence crime rates. Evidence of the effect brought about by
reducing crime of incarceration and policing is reliable across
diverse methodological strategies. Assumptions of deterrent
impact of the death penalty are not strong and propose that
entitlements of large impacts of the policies may be false. A lot
of work is expected to survey the relative significance of
deterrence and weakening. Experimental economic experts have
gained less ground in considering the criminal justice
framework itself. Information accessibility compels the
financial experts' capacity to determine the concurrence of
criminal justice foundations and wrongdoing rates, and this
constraint hampers thorough exact examination of the
motivation impacts of various criminal justice establishments
and techniques.
Manski, C. F., & Pepper, J. V. (2013). Deterrence and The
Death Penalty: Partial Identification Analysis Using
Repeated Cross Sections. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 29(1), 123-141.
For long researchers have utilized the same cross-sectional
observations of sanctions and homicides rate to explore the
deterrent impact brought about by acceptance and application of
capital punishment acts. However, experimental works has
significantly been unsuccessful in getting a compromise. The
article argues that the main problem is a failure to observe the
results of counterfactual policies. In this way, data alone cannot
be utilized to recognize the deterrent influence of the death
penalty. Research, in this case, is trying to impose strong
assumptions to yield a definitive discovery. In its place, the
article explores the categorizing power of weak expectations
which limit differences of how reply transversely place and time
is treated. The author discovers that partial identification is

5. bounded the deterrent impact of the death penalty. By adding
stronger categorizing assumptions, the article seeks to make it
clear how assumptions shape inference. There is substantial
ambiguity under the weakest restrictions. People cannot rule out
the likelihood that having a capital punishment statute
considerably decreases or increases homicide. Imposing
stronger assumptions can reduce the ambiguity.
Zimmerman, P. R. (2009). Statistical Variability and the
Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty. American law and
economics review, ahp003.
The article is based on Donohue and Wolfers’ main criticism of
Zimmerman’s study. The criticism states that the approximated
errors on the sub-collection of Zimmerman’s regressions that
propose a deterrent impact are prejudiced because of
autocorrelation. However, the method relied upon by Donohue
and Wolfers to adjust standard errors of Zimmerman is
potentially problematic. Moreover, it is the only one of the
various method that has addressed the existence of
autocorrelation. Original models of Zimmerman to this end are
subject to different parametric adjustments to autocorrelation.
All of them lead to statistically important estimates that are
believed to be of the same magnitudes to the author's original
estimates. Furthermore, the article presents results that are
obtained from a different model whose requirement is motivated
on statistical and theoretical grounds. In addition to this, the
latter outcomes offer some evidence that supports a deterrent
impact. Ultimately, the article talks about how Donohue and
Wolfers have used randomization testing and how they continue
to discuss that death penalty is not carried out regularly enough
to reasonably deter murders.
References
Cohen-Cole, E., Durlauf, S., Fagan, J. & Nagin, D. (2009).
Model Uncertainty and the Deterrent Effect of Capital
Punishment. American Law and Economics Review, 11(2), 335-
369.
Donohue, J. J., & Wolfers, J. (2009). Estimating the Impact of

6. the Death Penalty on Murder. American Law and Economics
Review, ahp024.
Manski, C. F., & Pepper, J. V. (2013). Deterrence and The
Death Penalty: Partial Identification Analysis Using
Repeated Cross Sections. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 29(1), 123-141.
Levitt, S. D., & Miles, T. J. (2007). Empirical Study of
Criminal Punishment. Handbook of law and economics, 1, 455-
495.
Zimmerman, P. R. (2009). Statistical Variability and the
Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty. American law and
economics review, ahp003.