Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Comment on Ashley Rubin The Declining Death Penalty in Eighteenth-Century London? The Role of Ecological Fallacy in Lenience-Based Accounts Dan Klerman Conference on Empirical Legal Studies October 25, 2013 Before 1718 Prosecutions % of prosecutions Death sentences Probability of death penalty Theft 8,090 74% 1,243 15% Other crimes 2,885 26% 212 7% 1,455 13% Total After 1718 Theft Other crimes Total 10,975 Prosecutions % of prosecutions Death sentences Probability of death penalty 29,839 81% 2461 8% 6,811 19% 688 10% 3149 9% 36,650 Theft is vast majority of prosecutions So decline in probability of death sentence for theft Drives overall statistics Masks increase in probability of sentence for other crimes Relatively small change in case composition Is it helpful to describe this as ecological fallacy? Contrast Simpson’s paradox Simpson’s Paradox (hypothetical data) Before 1718 Prosecutions % of prosecutions Death sentences Probability of death penalty Theft 8,000 80% 1600 20% Other crimes 2,000 20% 200 10% 1800 18% Total After 1718 10,000 Prosecutions % of prosecutions Death sentences Probability of death penalty Theft 2,000 20% 500 25% Other crimes 8,000 80% 1200 15% 1700 17% Total 10,000 Before 1718 Prosecutions % of prosecutions Death sentences Probability of death penalty Theft 8,090 74% 1,243 15% Other crimes 2,885 26% 212 7% 1,455 13% Total After 1718 Theft Other crimes Total 10,975 Prosecutions % of prosecutions Death sentences Probability of death penalty 29,839 81% 2461 8% 6,811 19% 688 10% 3149 9% 36,650 Theft is vast majority of prosecutions, so decline in probability of death sentence for theft Drives overall statistics Masks increase in probability of sentence for other crimes Relatively small change in case composition Is it helpful to describe this as ecological fallacy? Contrast Simpson’s paradox Is it problematic to say that legal system became more lenient overall? Control for Case Strength • Maybe non-theft cases got stronger after 1718 – So, given cases of equal strength, system was more lenient even in non-theft cases • Maybe theft cases got weaker after 1718 – So, given cases of equal strength, system got harsher in theft cases • Potential controls – – – – – – – Value & type of stolen goods Sex, age & status of offender Relationship between offender & victim # of witnesses Prior convictions Whether prosecutor or defendant had a lawyer Literacy Identify Actors and Mechanisms • Jury – Pious perjury increased (only theft?) – Other ways for juries to affect sentence • Judge – Sentencing discretion of judge • More transportation for theft, but not for other crimes – More or fewer requests for pardons – Greater or lesser stringency in administration of benefit of clergy • Legislators – Greater percentage of non-theft crimes eligible for death penalty – Changes in eligibility for transportation and/or benefit of clergy • Neighbors – Less petitioning for pardons? • Prosecutors – Less charging of capital offenses Other Questions • Why focus on pre/post 1718? – Could test for other breakpoints – Could test for overall/continuous trend • Death sentence versus execution? • Decision to prosecute – Coroner’s data for homicide Conclusion • Important example of benefit of quantitative analysis of legal history • Convincing • Additional analysis could make truly outstanding – Control for case quality – Explain which actors & mechanisms were responsible for increase/decrease in leniency