Tag Archives: states

Stand your ground laws and homicide rates

Via Christopher Shea, this paper claims to show that “castle doctrine” laws actually increase murder rates. Abstract:

Since Florida adopted the first castle doctrine law in 2005, more than 20 other states have passed similar self-defense laws that justify the use of deadly force in a wider set of circumstances. Elements of these laws include removing the duty to retreat in places outside of one’s home, adding a presumption of reasonable belief of imminent harm necessitating a lethal response, and removing civil liability for those acting under the law. This paper examines whether aiding self-defense in this way deters crime or, alternatively, escalates violence. To do so, we apply a difference-in-differences research design by exploiting the within-state variation in law adoption. We find no evidence of deterrence; burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault are unaffected by the laws. On the other hand, we find that murder and non-negligent manslaughter are increased by 7 to 9 percent. This could represent either increased use of lethal force in self-defense situations, or the escalation of violence in otherwise non-lethal situations. Regardless, the results indicate that a primary consequence of strengthening self-defense law is increased homicide.

Unfortunately I can’t find an ungated copy anywhere on the web.

Field experiment on race and state legislators’ responsiveness to constituents

Leave a reply

Politicians, of all people, should be hyper-sensitive about any appearance of racism. And maybe they are, but not enough that clever political scientists can’t catch them by using a fake-constituent e-mail experiment. In a recently published study, an e-mail inquiring about registering to vote was sent to several thousand state legislators before the 2008 general election. Some legislators received the e-mail from “Jake Mueller,” while others received the e-mail from “DeShawn Jackson.” In general, Jake got a somewhat higher response rate than DeShawn, and, on the surface, it seemed that Democrats were less discriminatory than Republicans. However, upon further analysis, the data revealed that white Democrats discriminated just as much as Republicans (most of whom were white), but they were balanced out by minority Democrats discriminating in favor of DeShawn, making it looking like Democrats as a whole didn’t discriminate. The authors conclude that these “results provide direct support for the broader argument that how effectively minorities are represented does depend on the race of their representatives, regardless of their party.”

This is the Boston Globe’s Kevin Lewis on a forthcoming paper in the American Journal of Political Science by D. Butler and D. Broockman. I heard about this research before and am excited it’s being published. I’ll read it when it shows up in my inbox.

This is a field experiment so threats to internal validity are minimized. We could wonder about external validity–perhaps US state legislators are somehow different than other lawmakers, either in the federal level or (more likely) in other countries. But I think if we want to learn something about racial bias in policy in the US states, this is a great example of how to do it.

Why are the states in such debt? What will get them out of it?

Leave a reply

I’ve been looking at polls on the deficit in recent weeks. One thing I’ve noticed is that pollsters have asked people what they think about the deficit (and also stimulus) periodically for years. This makes me wonder how much the current “crisis” is blown out of proportion, if it has come up periodically and we’re still here.

So with that caveat aside, two articles in the New York Times this week on the states’ fiscal troubles caught my eye. Regardless of how much of a problem there is, these events are interesting in the sort of distributional questions they raise. That is, once we all agree there is a problem, who will pay for it?

That seems to depend heavily on who gets blamed for the problem. This article in the June 23 edition talks about a new panel being set up to determine the causes:

Americans who have wondered whether Illinois, California and other troubled states are slouching toward the fate of Greece may get their answer in the coming months.

Richard Ravitch, who won an emergency appointment as New York’s lieutenant governor during the 2009 budget impasse, announced a high-level new project Thursday to untangle the finances of the states and shine a light on their hidden debts.

“Whereas there is enormous public attention to the federal deficit, the problems of the states are very serious and nowhere near very well understood,” he said in an interview. “People have to understand this, and address it with the same degree of gravitas as the federal deficit problem.”

It will be interesting to see what they find. But I wonder whether any social scientists, especially economists, have already looked at this?

The second article is from the same day, but on the Times’ City Room blog and deals specifically with the situation in New Jersey and how no one seems to know how much money will actually be saved by a recently adopted plan to cut the deficit.

The remarkably imprecise estimates of cost savings from these health proposals, and the last-minute maneuvering, are nearly as baffling as the politics. Pressed to put a number this week on likely savings, Gov. Chris Christie’s treasury officials retreated into bureaucratic mumbles.

A union official is quoted as saying the numbers aren’t so important as the imagery.

“It doesn’t really seem be about a number of dollars — it’s more ‘we’re forcing employees to pay 22 percent on average’ for coverage,” says Robert Master, C.W.A.’s political director. “They are looking for optics.”

The effects of gun laws on violent crime / tolerance of gun culture / crimson fish

Leave a reply

BY Monday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona must decide whether to sign a bill partly lifting her state’s ban on guns on college and university campuses. Gun advocates insist that will make campuses safer by discouraging mass killers and giving students the ability to fight back. Gun control proponents warn the law will lead to more lethal violence.

Both sides are probably wrong. Gun violence at colleges and universities — there are fewer than 20 homicides on campus per year — will probably not be affected much, one way or another. What is really at stake is America’s gun culture.

From an op/ed in today’s New York Times. You have to give the author credit: confronted with a difficult question, he is at least honest enough to admit he has no idea what the answer is: gun violence will “probably” not be “affected much”. Statistically speaking, that’s like saying you have statistical and substantive insignificance at the same time. Which is what most op/eds like this give us, so kudos for the honesty.

What I like less is the diversionary tactic (see also here): after throwing up his hands and admitting we can’t know anything for certain about the effects of gun laws, the author then claims that it’s “really” about perceptions: the goal of these more lenient laws is to build tolerance for gun culture. To wit:

Exposure can breed tolerance. Arguably, that is exactly what’s behind the growing acceptance of gays and lesbians. The visibility of gay couples in society and popular culture has led many Americans to realize that homosexuality is not wrong. Gun advocates are betting the same can happen with firearms.

So let’s substitute a difficult causal argument with another one. Hey, it’s even simpler to talk about, because no one is debating it–there aren’t interest groups on either sides pushing their own interpretation of the data. And it’s counterintuitive, so that’s a plus.

How the States Tax

Leave a reply

Via Ezra Klein, this graph:

Klein’s post focuses on the regional variation: in the South, states rely more on regressive taxes (like sales taxes) instead of progressive taxes (like income tax).

However, what jumps out at me from this graph, especially in light of my earlier post about state tax incentives, is the huge gap between personal and corporate income taxes across all regions. Bear in mind the graphs are for the percentage of total revenue raised, and there are lots more individuals paying income taxes than corporations paying income taxes.