| 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 |
« Social science and popular culture | Main | A case for the case-control method »
19 November 2007
There was a good non-technical article by Adam Liptak in the New York Times this weekend reviewing the renewed debate about the supposed deterrent effect of capital punishment (The web version of the article linked to seven different academic articles; many thanks to the editorial staff). I've blogged about this before (here) and tend to agree with those who say that there just isn't enough information in the data. In that context, I particularly liked the quote from Justin Wolfers at the end of the article:
Professor Wolfers said the answer to the question of whether the death penalty deterred was “not unknowable in the abstract,” given enough data.“If I was allowed 1,000 executions and 1,000 exonerations, and I was allowed to do it in a random, focused way,” he said, “I could probably give you an answer.”
Posted by Mike Kellermann at November 19, 2007 8:20 AM
I was going to mock the use of the word "sophisticated" combined with "multiple regression analysis" to satisfy my inner language snob here, but given the focus of the article toward the non-quantitative, big words like this do sell the point that it's a deceptively difficult technique to do right. And other than matching and experiments (which would be hysterical in both senses of the word), what else do we have?
Posted by: Andrew C. Thomas at November 19, 2007 2:26 PM