This graph shows the estimate that Kenny Shirley and I have of support for the death penalty by sex and race in the U.S. since 1955:
We also found that capital punishment used to be more popular in the Northeast than in the South, but now it’s the other way around.
See here for details.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
That time series trend looks a lot like the one for the murder rate.
Your article is so value neutral, it’s surprising you chose to abandon that commendable scientific evenhandedness to characterize your results as a measure of bloodthirstiness. The temptation to wave the bloody flag was just too great, I guess.
Chris:
See the paper by Donohue and Wolfers for a discussion of that correlation.
Rob:
I agree that the “bloodthirstiness” line was in bad taste. In my defense, we worked so hard on that project, I think we should be allowed a silly blog title. But I’m sure that if I personally knew anyone involved in any of these cases (whether connected to the victim or the accused), I wouldn’t be joking about it.
Thanks for your reply, Andrew. Actually, it wasn’t the tastelessness of “bloodthirstiness” that concerned me, it was the equation of support for capital punishment with bloodthirstiness. My preference would be to abolish capital punishment, but I’m willing to acknowledge that it’s possible to hold a different view for principled reasons, not simply out of bloodthirstiness. To take a slightly different example, President Obama ordered the deaths of bin Laden and al-Awlaki. Whether you approve of those actions or not, can we agree that it would be reductionistic and offensive to accuse the President of being bloodthirsty? I believe he acted out of his sense that the greater good was served by these deaths, just as I believe many supporters of capital punishment have come to the same conclusion about those guilty of heinous crimes.
Until we stop belittling our ideological opponents as bloodthirsty (or for other issues, stupid or venal or racist or paranoid), we’ll never achieve the kind of civil discourse we all claim to value, and btw we’ll never have any hope of changing many people’s minds.
Rob:
“Bloodthirstiness” was just a joke, it would be along the same lines as using the term “Support for baby-murdering” for a graph about attitudes on abortion or “Support for wasteful government spending” for a graph about the stimulus program or “Support for pollution” for a graph about support for relaxing environmental regulations. It certainly wasn’t meant to be a serious description. I was just being silly (but, I admit, in poor taste)!
Why is the pdf file of your paper no longer working?