John Donohue

Study Shows Scales Of Justice Askew When It Comes To Death Penalty

John J. Donohue — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:38:31 PST

A former Yale Law School professor's long-running study now concludes that while extremely rare, the death penalty is a largely random punishment that often hangs on the accused's race and where in Connecticut the crime took place. John Donohue, now at Stanford University, looked at the application of the death penalty between 1973 and 2007, examining and rating 205 cases during a period when 4,686 murders occurred in the state.

The Impact of Concealed-Carry Laws

John J. Donohue — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:07:47 PST

Thirty-three states have “shall-issue” laws that require law enforcement authorities to issue permits to carry concealed weapons to any qualified applicant who requests one—that is, to adults with no documented record of significant criminality or mental illness. A spirited academic debate has emerged over whether these laws are helpful or harmful. While it is fairly easy to list the possible consequences of the passage of these laws, it has not been easy to come to agreement about which effects dominate in practice. Many scholars fear that these laws will stimulate more ownership and carrying of guns, leading to adverse effects such as an increase in spur-of-the-moment shootings in the wake of arguments or opportunistic criminal acts, increased carrying and quicker use of guns by criminals, more opportunities for theft of guns, thereby moving more legally owned guns into the hands of criminals, and more accidental killings and gun suicides. However, a path breaking article by John Lott and David Mustard in 1997 and a subsequent book by Lott have made the case that opportunistic crime should fall for everyone as criminals ponder whether they will be shot or otherwise thwarted by a potential victim or bystander carrying a concealed weapon.

The Random Horror of the Death Penalty

John J. Donohue — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:50:09 PST

The Supreme Court has not banned capital punishment, as it should, but it has long held that the death penalty is unconstitutional if randomly imposed on a handful of people. An important new study based on capital cases in Connecticut provides powerful evidence that death sentences are haphazardly meted out, with virtually no connection to the heinousness of the crime.

The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy

John J. Donohue — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:50:55 PST

For over a decade, there has been a spirited academic debate over the impact on crime of laws that grant citizens the presumptive right to carry concealed handguns in public— so-called right-to-carry (RTC) laws. In 2005, the National Research Council (NRC) offered a critical evaluation of the ‘‘more guns, less crime’’ hypothesis using county-level crime data for the period 1977–2000. Seventeen of the eighteen NRC panel members essentially concluded that the existing research was inadequate to conclude that RTC laws increased or decreased crime. The final member of the panel, though, concluded that the NRC_s panel data regressions supported the conclusion that RTC laws decreased murder. We evaluate the NRC evidence and show that, unfortunately, the regression estimates presented in the report appear to be incorrect. We improve and expand on the report_s county data analysis by analyzing an additional six years of county data as well as state panel data for the period 1977–2006. While we have considerable sympathy with the NRC_s majority view about the difficulty of drawing conclusions from simple panel data models, we disagree with the NRC report_s judgment that cluster adjustments to correct for serial correlation are not needed. Our randomization tests show that without such adjustments, the Type 1 error soars to 40–70%. In addition, the conclusion of the dissenting panel member that RTC laws reduce murder has no statistical support. Finally, our article highlights some important questions to The authors wish to thank David Autor, Alan Auerbach, Phil Cook, Peter Siegelman, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments, as well as Stanford Law School and Yale Law School for financial support. consider when using panel data methods to resolve questions of law and policy effectiveness. Although we agree with the NRC_s cautious conclusion regarding the effects of RTC laws, we buttress this conclusion by showing how sensitive the estimated impact of RTC laws is to different data periods, the use of state versus county data, particular specifications, and the decision to control for state trends. Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from both the state and the county panel data models conducted over the entire 1977–2006 period with and without state trends and using three different models is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime. It will be worth exploring whether other methodological approaches and/or additional years of data will confirm the results of this panel data analysis. (JEL K49, K00, C52)

Assessing Post-ADA Employment: Some Econometric Evidence and Policy Considerations

John J. Donohue — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:07:26 PST

In this article, we offer innovative analysis and additional evidence on the relationship between the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the relative labor market outcomes for people with disabilities, the very class protected by its landmark provisions. Using individual-level longitudinal data from 1981 to 1996 derived from the previously unexploited Panel Study of Income Dynamics (“PSID”), we examine the possible effect of the ADA on (1) annual weeks worked; (2) annual earnings; and (3) hourly wages for a sample of 7120 unique male household heads between the ages of 21 and 65 as well as a subset of 1147 individuals appearing every year from 1981 to 1996. Our analysis of the larger sample suggests the ADA had a negative impact on the employment levels of disabled persons relative to non-disabled persons but no impact on relative earnings. However, our evaluation of the restricted sample raises questions about these findings. Using these data, we find little evidence of adverse effects on weeks worked but strong evidence of wage declines for the disabled, albeit declines beginning in 1986, well before the ADA’s passage. These results therefore cast doubt on the adverse ADA-related impacts found in previous studies, particularly Acemoglu and Angrist (2001). The conflicting narratives that emerge from our analysis shed new light on, but also counsel caution in reaching final conclusions about, the impact of the ADA on employment outcomes for people with disabilities.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN CONNECTICUT, 1973-2007: A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION FROM 4686 MURDERS TO ONE EXECUTION

John J. Donohue — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:20:24 PDT

This study explores and evaluates the application of the death penalty in Connecticut from 1973 until 2007, a period during which 4686 murders were committed in the state. The objective is to assess whether the system operates lawfully and reasonably or is marred by arbitrariness, caprice, or discrimination. My empirical approach has three components. First, I provide background information on the overall numbers of murders, death sentences, and executions in Connecticut. The extreme infrequency with which the death penalty is administered in Connecticut raises a serious question as to whether the state’s death penalty regime is serving any legitimate social purpose.

Specifically, of the 4686 murders committed during the sample period, 205 are death-eligible cases that resulted in a homicide conviction, and 138 of these were charged with a capital felony. Of the 92 convicted of a capital felony, 29 then went to a death penalty sentencing hearing, resulting in 9 sustained death sentences, and one execution (in 2005). A comprehensive assessment of this process of winnowing reveals a troubling picture. Overall, the state’s record of handling death-eligible cases represents a chaotic and unsound criminal justice policy that serves neither deterrence nor retribution.

Second, mindful of the Supreme Court’s mandate that “[c]apital punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit ‘a narrow category of the most serious crimes’ and whose extreme culpability makes them ‘the most deserving of execution,’”3I evaluate whether the crimes that result in sustained death sentences are the most egregious relative to other death-eligible murders. Any claim to properly punishing such a narrow and specific category of the most serious offenses can definitively be put to rest. The Connecticut death penalty regime does not select from the class of death-eligible defendants those most deserving of execution. At best, the Connecticut system haphazardly singles out a handful for execution from a substantial array of horrible murders.

Third, I conduct a multiple regression to test more formally for the presence of arbitrariness or discrimination in implementing the death penalty. Specifically, I examine the impact on capital charging and sentencing decisions of legitimate factors that bear on the deathworthiness of 205 death-eligible cases, as well as legally suspect variables—such as race and gender of the defendant, race of victim, or judicial district in which the murder occurred. The Connecticut death penalty system decidedly fails this inquiry; arbitrariness and discrimination are defining features of the state’s capital punishment regime.

The Discretion of Judges and Corporate Executives: An Insider’s View of the Disney Case

John J. Donohue — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:42:22 PDT

The widely publicized Disney case is perhaps the most important corporate law litigation in many decades. The case illustrates the immense discretion in the hands of trial judges in Delaware Chancery Court to let their passive corporate law ideology determine the outcome even in cases of egregious management neglect. Unfortunately, as managers, not shareholders, are the ones who decide where to incorporate and Delaware—the state of choice—depends on incorporation revenues to feed its coffers, too often this discretion is exercised to protect management at shareholder expense.

Book Review - When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment

John J. Donohue — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:29:21 PDT

Two of the most dramatic social phenomena of the last half century in the United States are the substantial rise in crime that occurred during the 1960s and the equally dramatic drop in crime that began roughly contemporaneously with the advent of the Clinton Administration. The good news is that we have improved things from the violent and crime-filled days of the late 1980s and early 1990s; the bad news is that we have increased our prison population immensely in the effort. We may now be enjoying the return to the crime levels of the early 1960s, but we also have a prison and jail population that is almost seven times larger.

Assessing Post-ADA Employment: Some Econometric Evidence and Policy Considerationsjels

John J. Donohue — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:27:30 PDT

This article explores the relationship between the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the relative labor market outcomes for people with disabilities. Using individual-level longitudinal data from 1981 to 1996 derived from the previously unexploited Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), we examine the possible effect of the ADA on (1) annual weeks worked; (2) annual earnings; and (3) hourly wages for a sample of 7,120 unique male household heads between the ages of 21 and 65, as well as for a subset of 1,437 individuals appearing every year from 1981 to 1996. Our analysis of the larger sample suggests the ADA had a negative impact on the employment levels of disabled persons relative to nondisabled persons but no impact on relative earnings. However, our evaluation of the restricted sample raises questions about these findings. Using these data, we find little evidence of adverse effects on weeks worked but strong evidence of wage declines for the disabled, albeit declines beginning in 1986, well before the ADA’s passage. These results therefore cast doubt on the adverse ADA-related impacts found in previous studies, particularly Acemoglu and Angrist (2001). The conflicting narratives that emerge from our analysis shed new light on, but also counsel caution in reaching final conclusions about, the impact of the ADA on employment outcomes for people with disabilities.

Rethink the "War on Drugs"

John J. Donohue — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:51:39 PDT

Crime is an issue that often seeps into Presidential elections in one form or another. Indeed, the Bush Administration has rolled back or undermined the two primary crime‐fighting initiatives of the Clinton Administration by allowing the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons to lapse, and by eliminating Clinton’s COPS program, which put tens of thousands of new police on the streets of American cities. Gun control is largely a dead letter, since the NRA has shown that it has the power to keep any type of gun in the hands of anyone who wants them, as well as the power to punish any Democrat who seeks greater gun control legislation.

One area that could bring large dividends in terms of crime reduction would be to change tactics in the quagmire of the American war on drugs. With blind fidelity to a failed policy, we continue to fritter away scarce law enforcement resources fighting sale and possession of drugs and to put hundreds of thousands in prison at enormous cost to taxpayers and to inmates and their families. Many substances from alcohol and nicotine to marijuana, cocaine, and heroin impose high social costs on American society, but only the illegal drugs lead to mass incarceration, corruption of police, street killings, and other acts of violence in the effort to market them to a desirous American population. Just as the end of Prohibition generated enormous crime reductions, legalization of the above drugs would likely bring about similar crime drops, while risking increases in the high costs attending the likely increase in consumption and abuse.

Testimony in Support of Senate Bill 1035 and House Bill 6425

John J. Donohue — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:07:38 PDT

In 1975, Isaac Ehrlich launched the modern econometric evaluation of the impact of the death penalty on the prevalence of murder with a controversial paper that concluded that each execution would lead to eight fewer homicides (Ehrlich 1975). A year later, the Supreme Court cited Ehrlich’s work in issuing an opinion ending the execution moratorium that had started with the 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia. Today it is widely recognized that Ehrlich's national time-series methodology is too unreliable to be published in any economics journal.

Over the last few years, a number of highly technical papers have purported to revive the now-discredited Ehrlich finding, again claiming that the death penalty is indeed a deterrent. This work has fared no better than Ehrlich's. In articles published in the Stanford Law Review and the American Law and Economics Review, Justin Wolfers of Wharton and I have reviewed all of these studies in exhaustive and minute detail and found that there is not the slightest credible empirical support for the proposition that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder.

The impact of the death penalty on murder

John J. Donohue — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:54:33 PDT

Both history and daily crime sheets underscore a depressing capacity for human violence and inhumanity. Some scholars feel that eliminating capital punishment would be a step toward reducing the toll of human suffering, whereas others feel that retaining the death penalty will prevent some murders at least. Kovandzic, Vieraitis, and Boots (2009, this issue) provide a comprehensive ordinary least-squares (OLS) state panel data assessment of the most recent postmoratorium data available and reach a strong conclusion that the death penalty does not deter murder. This article is an important piece in the complex jigsaw puzzle that will illuminate which factors can deter which crimes under which circumstances.

Commenting on the Kovandzic et al. (2009) article are two scholars who have authored major articles that concern the impact of the death penalty on murder. Richard Berk (2009, this issue) speculates whether the deterrent impact of the death penalty is knowable given current data and methods, whereas Paul Rubin (2009, this issue) argues that “the weight of the evidence as well as the theoretical predictions both argue for deterrence, and econometrically flawed studies such as this article are insufficient to overthrow this presumption.” With virtually all positions represented by these three documents, I will discuss three recent new studies that I think address some of Berk’s concern and provide strong evidence to support that Kovandzic et al. are right.

Room for Debate Forum on the More Guns, Less Crime Isssue

John J. Donohue — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:46:41 PDT

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/01/11/more-guns-less-crime

Understanding the 1990s Crime Drops in the U.S. and Canada

John J. Donohue — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:05:36 PST

There is much to be learned from Frank Zimring’s highly readable and penetrating examination of the U.S drop in crime in the 1990s. Zimring does a masterful job of illustrating how when crime was rising in the 1970s the message that nothing can effectively prevent it was widely accepted. Skip ahead to the period following the 1990s crime drop and every policy from more and better policing to greater reliance on incarceration to more gun control – or even more guns – has some champion for the view that they are particularly effective crime fighters. As is often the case, the public commentary tends to be simplistic and misleading, but my own view is that the rough contours of why crime fell are clearer than Zimring believes.

Why 'Y' Radio Address: Gun Laws After Tucson Shootings

John J. Donohue — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:57:33 PST

Last weekend’s massacre in Tucson, Arizona, at a “Congress On Your Corner” event by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) has sparked waves of rhetoric and policy debates, especially regarding gun laws. On today’s Radio Times, Marty will explore Arizona’s gun laws and whether the shootings will change policies and politics surrounding access to guns. Our guests are DAVID KOPEL, research director at the Independence Institute and an adjunct professor of law at the University of Denver; and JOHN J. DONOHUE III, a Stanford Law professor who has conducted extensive research into gun laws.

Review of the Road to Abolition

John J. Donohue — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:37:37 PST

The two most important questions about the death penalty in the United States today are should we get rid of it and will we get rid of it? While he contributors to this important and interesting new book are unanimous that capital punishment should be abolished, opinions differ on whether abolition is likely to occur in the US any time soon, and if so, how.

If one wants to gain a deeper understanding of the effort to eliminate capital punishment in the U.S. over the last forty years, and what the future holds for this harsh feature of American exceptionalism, this stimulating book is the place to look. (The oddity of the U.S. stance on capital punishment is underscored in Bernard Harcourt’s summary of factors that increase the likelihood that a country will retain capital punishment: (1) lower economic development; (2) lower political voice and accountability; (3) lower political stability; (4) dominated by religions other than Christianity; (5) located in the Middle East, Asia, or the Caribbean regions; and (6) a recent history of extrajudicial killings. (p.81) What is the U.S. doing in this club?)

Ovitz Performance In Disney Role Is Faulted at Trial

John Donohue — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:01:14 PDT

Former Walt Disney Co. President Michael Ovitz's job performance and spending habits came under attack during testimony in a Delaware court case, as an expert witness said Disney's directors could have fired Mr. Ovitz for cause, rather than giving him the no‐fault termination he received. John J. Donohue, a Yale University law professor and witness for a group of Disney shareholders, testified that his review of California law, of Mr. Ovitz's employment contract and of depositions in the case showed that Disney's board had the right not to grant Mr. Ovitz a no‐ fault termination, which resulted in an estimated $140 million severance package in 1996, when he left Disney after 14 months.

Expert Witness Says Disney Had Cause to Fire President

John Donohue — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:59:24 PDT

The Walt Disney Company should have fired Michael S. Ovitz because of his "substantial and repeated dishonesty," a legal specialist testified yesterday in support of the shareholders who are suing Disney's directors over Mr. Ovitz's $140 million severance package.

Disney had good reason to fire Ovitz

John Donohue — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:54:50 PDT

GEORGETOWN, Del., Oct 21 (Reuters) - Walt Disney Co. (DIS.N) should have fired Michael Ovitz rather than paying him $140 million in severance, a legal expert testified on Thursday in support of shareholders suing the Disney board. Shareholders are demanding that the severance and interest - a sum that could total about $200 million - be returned to the company, claiming that the board was asleep at the wheel when they approved the deal and that Ovitz failed miserably in his 14 months as president. In the second day of a trial that is being closely watched in corporate boardrooms, shareholders called John Donohue, a law professor at Yale and an expert in labor and contract law, to testify that the board could have fired Ovitz.

A Comparison of Male-Female Hazard Rates of Young Workers, 1968-1971

John Donohue — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 14:11:59 PDT

The perception that women have higher turnover rates than men is widespread. A recent study has argued, with a touch of sarcasm, that "[p]opular stereotypes, which economists refer to as 'stylized facts, I portray women as relatively poor bets as workers because they have ... higher quit rates than males. 1I Waite and Berryman [1985: 61]. Indeed, in a recent article on occupational segregation, Goldin takes this IIfact ll as the premise for her model, although in support of this position she cites only a 1920 study. Goldin [1985]. While this may well be adequate for Goldin's historical analysis, a study conducted at a time when the labor market experience of women was completely different than it is today does not illuminate the question of the cur',:"ent relative turnover rates of men and women. The isslle of differences -- or perceived differences -- in expected job tenure between male and female workers may have an important bearing on the size of the male-female wage differential. If there are large personnel investment costs associated with job turnover, an employer attempting to earn a normal rate of return on a fixed personnel investment would not be willing to pay women the same wage as equally productive men who are expected to remain on their jobs longer.