August 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

Authors' Committee

Chair:

Andy Eggers (Gov)

Members:

Weihua An (Soc)
Kevin Bartz (Stats)
Sebastian Bauhoff (HealthPol)
John Graves (HealthPol)
Justin Grimmer (Gov)
Jens Hainmueller (Gov)
Mike Kellermann (Gov)
Ellie Powell (Gov)
Gary King (Gov)

Weekly Research Workshop Sponsors

Alberto Abadie, Lee Fleming, Adam Glynn, Guido Imbens, Gary King, Kevin Quinn, Jamie Robins, Don Rubin, Chris Winship

Recent Comments

Recent Entries

Categories

Blogroll

Brad DeLong
Cognitive Daily
Complexity & Social Networks
Developing Intelligence
EconLog
The Education Wonks
Empirical Legal Studies
Free Exchange
Freakonomics
Health Care Economist
Junk Charts
Language Log
Law & Econ Prof Blog
Machine Learning (Theory)
Marginal Revolution
Mixing Memory
Mystery Pollster
New Economist
Political Arithmetik
Political Science Methods
Pure Pedantry
Science & Law Blog
Simon Jackman
Social Science++
Statistical modeling, causal inference, and social science

Archives

Notification

Powered by
Movable Type 4.12


« Applied Statistics - Alan Zaslavsky | Main | Remembering the Baldus Study, Part II »

29 November 2006

Remembering the Baldus Study, Part I

Jim Greiner

One of my current research interests is the application of a potential outcomes framework of causation to perceptions of what lawyers call “immutable characteristics" like race, gender, or national origin. In that vein, I’d like to pay tribute to one of the early greats in the area of quantitative analysis of race in the legal setting: the so-called “Baldus Study” of the role of race in imposition of the death penalty in Georgia. The Study authors, David Baldus, George C. Woodworth, and Charles A. Pulaski, Jr,, gathered data on over 1000 Georgia homicides from 1973-1979. Although the Study attempted to tackle a variety of questions, the most publicized was whether recent reforms to Georgia’s sentencing process (enacted in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Furman v. Georgia) had succeeded in removing the relevance of race in the state’s capital sentencing system. The Study’s primary conclusion on this point was that the race of the victim, but not the race of the defendant, played a significant role in deciding whether death was imposed.

The Study was highly publicized, and it led to its own Supreme Court case. In McCleskey v. Kemp, four justices thought that the conclusions of the Baldus Study were sufficient to render Georgia’s capital sentencing system unconstitutional. Five justices disagreed; they thought that the capital defendant in the case had to show that race had played a role in HIS trial, not that race generally played a role in the set capital trials.

More on the Baldus Study in my next post.

Posted by James Greiner at November 29, 2006 1:53 PM

Comments

"race" cannot affect anything b/c it is socially and politically constructed...studies which show "race" effects are logically incorrect and almost always poorly conceptualized

see Tukufu Zuberi's (2001) book "thicker than blood"

instead what is needed is a theory of RACISM to interpret racialized disparities unexplained in saturated models

"race" is not "immutable" b/c the concept only dates back to 17th century

and "races" are legal constructions..."one drop rules", etc,

hold up a piece of white paper up to your arm, then see if glove fits...

Posted by: tom volscho at November 30, 2006 5:23 AM