Murder, Capital Punishment, and Television: Execution Publicity and Homicide Rates

Murder, Capital Punishment, and Television: Execution Publicity and Homicide RatesAuthor(s): William C. BaileySource: American Sociological Review, Vol. 55, No. 5 (Oct., 1990), pp. 628-633Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095860 .

Accessed: 26/12/2013 21:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Sociological Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:42:28 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095860?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


MURDER, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AND TELEVISION: EXECUTION PUBLICITY AND HOMICIDE RATES*

WILLIAM C. BAILEY Cleveland State University

The deterrent effect of criminal law is dependent upon communication to the public of the threat and application of sanctions. I test this argument for murder and capital punishment by examining monthly homicide rates and television publicity devoted to executions from 1976 through 1987. Despite the power of television as a source of news in the United States, the results of this study do not support either the deterrence argument, which contends that capital punishment reduces killings, or the brutalization argument, which contends that capital punishment promotes killings. Homicide rates were not found to be related to either the amount or the type of execution publicity over the period.

A fundamental premise of deterrence theory is that to be effective in preventing

crime the threat and application of the law must be made known to the public. Proponents of deterrence theory and general prevention have long contended that the publicity surrounding punishment serves important educative, moral- izing, normative validation, and coercive func- tions (Andenaes 1974; Gibbs 1975, 1986). Accordingly, and applying this premise to capital punishment, high levels of execution publicity should result in lower homicide rates.

The role of execution publicity in preventing homicide has been the subject of several recent investigations (King 1978; Phillips 1980; McFarland 1983; Stack 1987; Bailey and Pe- terson 1989). However, King and McFarland do not measure directly the amount of publicity surrounding executions, while Phillips and Stack come to conclusions opposite those of Bailey and Peterson. Also important, the latter three studies consider only newspaper coverage of executions, neglecting the possible deterrent effect of television publicity. This is a serious void since television has become America's most important source of news. Over recent decades per capita daily newspaper cir- culation has declined somewhat (from .34 in 1950 to .27 in 1983), while the percent of homes with television sets has grown from less than ten percent in 1950 to over 98 percent in 1983.

* Direct all correspondence to William C. Bailey, College of Graduate Studies, Cleveland State Uni- versity, Cleveland, Ohio 44115. I would like to thank Diane Schaefer and Zlata Plostajner for their assis- tance in gathering and coding required media data.

Between 1959 and 1982 Roper pollsters peri- odically asked respondents: "Where [do] you usually get most of your news about what's going on in the world today - from the newspapers or television or magazines or talking to people or where?" (Roper Organization 1983). The most frequent news sources mentioned (multiple sources could be cited) were newspapers and television, with their respective per- centages being 57% and 51 % in 1959,48% and 60% in 1971, and 44% and 65% in 1982.

Not only has television news grown in popu- larity, but it has also become the most credible and powerful source of news. Roper data show that in 1959, 32 percent of the American public ranked newspapers as the most credible source of news, followed by television (29%), radio (12%), and magazines (1 0%). In contrast, a 1982 poll (Roper Organization 1983) showed that television was judged as the most credible source of news (53%), followed by newspapers (22%), magazines (8%) and radio (6%). Indeed, the American public views television as pro- viding the most "complete," "intelligent," and "unbiased" source of news (Bower 1985, p. 17). Of particular importance in the present context, the populations that are disproportionately in- volved in homicide - young adults, blacks, low income and poorly educated persons- rely on television much more than other sources for their daily news (Mediamark Research 1987; Bower 1985; Comstock, Chaffee, Katzman, McCombs, and Robert 1978). If the deterrent effect of capital punishment depends upon the publicity surrounding executions, then one would expect a significant inverse relationship between the level of television news coverage

American Sociological Review, 1990,Vol. 55 (October:628-633) 628



MURDER, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AND TV 629

of executions and homicide rates. Conversely, if there is merit to the argument that capital punishment promotes killings due to its brutalization effect on society, then one would predict a significant positive relationship between the level of television coverage devoted to executions and homicide rates.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

A series of autoregressive analyses of monthly homicide rates, the frequency of executions, and the amount and type of television coverage devoted to executions over the 1976-1987 period are reported below. In the analysis, I control for the influence of two additional punishment factors - the arrest clearance rate for murder, and the percent of the U.S. population residing in jurisdictions without capital punishment for murder (abolitionist jurisdictions). The following are also treated as control variables: (1) percent metropolitan population, (2) percent black population, (3) percent population 16-34 years of age, (4) the divorce rate, (5) percent unemployment of the civilian labor force, (6) percent of the U.S. population re- ceiving Aid to Families with Dependent Chil- dren (AFDC) benefits, (7) annual dummy variables, and (8) two seasonal variables that identify months with significantly higher/lower than normal homicide rates.

Homicide Rate

The dependent variable is the monthly homicide rate per 100,000 U.S. resident population. Homicide figures are drawn from annual vol- umes (1976-1987) and Monthly Vital Statistics Reports issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Department considers as homicide a death resulting from 'an injury purposely inflicted by other persons" (World Health Organization 1977, p. 624). Because legal executions and justifiable homicides are also included in the published homi-

cide statistics, these types of killings were ex- cluded in computing monthly offense rates.'

Execution Publicity

Since 1968 the Vanderbilt Television News Archives has abstracted the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news programs, including coverage of executions. There were no executions between 1968 and 1976. During the period 1977 through 1987, there were 93 executions. Of these, 33 (distributed over 25 months) received television coverage by one or more of the three national networks.

In constructing quantitative measures of execution publicity, I (1) differentiate (as a dummy variable) between months where there was zero versus some level of television execution publicity, (2) sum the number of days per month where there was execution publicity, and (3) tally the number of minutes of monthly air time devoted to executions.3 Publicity about aspects of capital cases other than executions (e.g., capital sentencing, convictions, and appeals) is not coded. Nor do I treat as execution news the activities of various abolitionist groups, changes in death penalty legislation, appellate court actions, or coverage of executions outside of the United States. A listing of the names of persons whose executions received television coverage and the amount of coverage by each network during the month of the execution is available from the author.

The deterrence argument does not identify the type of execution publicity that discourages homicides. However, some types of execution publicity may have a more dramatic effect than others. To explore this question I first create dichotomous variables that differentiate between cases where execution publicity did or did not involve graphic details - airing of art- ists' drawings (n = 6 months), provision of witness accounts (n = 1 1 months), and presen-

I As a proxy variable for changes in gun availability, 1940-1986, Bailey and Peterson (1989) considered the percent of homicides (and suicides) involving firearms as a control variable. I do not use such a proxy in this analysis. FBI figures on the percent of homicides involving firearms give no indication that an increased availability of guns over the period of interest had a significant effect on the level of gun- related killings: 1976,64%; 1978, 64%; 1980, 62%; 1982,60%; 1984,58.8%; 1986,59.1 %; 1987,59.1 %.

2 See Ba-ley and Peterson (1989, pp. 726-27) for a discussion of the use of rates of general homicide rather than capital homicide in death penalty analyses.

I Because the size of the viewing audiences for the three evening news programs is not uniform, it would be desirable to compute a weighted execution publicity measure for each network based upon audience share. A weighting scheme could also be used in forming a summary execution publicity index for the three networks combined. Unfortunately, it is not possible to construct such measures.



630 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

tation of the executed person's "last words" (n = 9 months). Second, I differentiate those offenders who might be viewed as more deserving of capital punishment. They include persons sentenced to death for multiple homicides, rape-murder, or killing a child. By this stan- dard, "deserved" executions took place during eight of the 25 televised execution months.

Third, I differentiate among executions where television coverage reflected concerns about the appropriateness of the execution (n = 7 months), including cases where (1) convicted persons claimed their innocence to the end, (2) the executed person was not the "trigger person" and the "real" killer received a lighter sentence, (3) legal delays were so inordinate as to constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" in the view of Chief Justice Burger regarding the execution of Robert Sullivan (reported on the ABC evening news of November 30, 1983 as cited in the Vanderbilt News Index and Abstracts), and (4) the youthful age of the offender or the offender's mental retardation prompted appeals for mercy from influential figures. Finally, I identify television coverage that did (n = 10 months), or did not, include anti-execution demonstrations. Here I am concerned with the perceived legiti- macy of executions.

Although other qualitative factors might be considered in examining the effects of television coverage of executions, the ones selected reflect important variation in television execution coverage during the 1977-1987 period. The goal is to assess whether this variation is associated with lower or higher homicide rates as predicted by the deterrence and brutalization arguments, respectively.

Following the practice of previous investiga- tors (Phillips 1980; Stack 1987; Bailey and Peterson J989), execution coverage that oc- curred after the 23rd of the month is coded as taking place the following month. The assump- tion is that execution stories aired at the end of the month will have their greatest influence on homicides the next month.

Data Sources

Monthly execution figures were taken from the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.'s Death Row, U.S.A. (1989). The U.S. Department of Justice's Capital Punishment series furnished the abolitionist/retentionist status of jurisdictions (as of the last day of each year) over the period. Homicide arrest clear-

Table 1. Autoregression Analysis of Homicide Rates and Execution Publicity

b b b Predictor Variables (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.)

% metropolitan -.020 -.033 -.028 population (.037) (.036) (.037)

% black population -.204 -.232 -.229 (.197) (.201) (.198)

% 16-34 years of age .093 .088 .089 (.049) (.050)k (.050)

Divorce rate -.051 -.047 -.044 (.091) (.092) (.091)

% unemployment .007 .008 .008 (.010) (.010) (.010)

% AFDC population .089 .082 .088 (.116) (.118) (.117)

High season variable .067 .067 .068 (.010)-- (.010) .. (.010)*++

Low season variable -.039 -.037 -.038 (.01 1)... (.01 1)*** (.01 1)*+

Homicide arrest rate -.015 -.016 -.015 (.007) (.007)* (.007)*

% in abolitionist .002 .002 .002 jurisdictions (.003) (.003) (.003)

Number of executions -.007 -.004 -.005 (.005) (.005) (.005)

TV publicity dummy .017 (0/1) variable (.011)

Number of minutes of .001 execution coverage (.001)

Number of days with - .005 execution coverage (.006)

Intercept 2.453 4.084 3.586

(4.592) (4.504) (4.536)

R 2 .874- .872-6 .87 1**

*p <.0 o p < .01 Xp < .001

ance rate data were drawn from FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1976-1987.

Monthly population, unemployment, and AFDC figures were taken from various U.S. government sources, including the Statistical Abstracts of the United States, Current Popu- lation Reports and issues of the Annual Statis- tical Supplement to the Social Security Bulle- tin. The Statistical Abstracts provided annual figures for the remaining sociodemographic variables. Where only annual data were available, linear interpolation was used to estimate monthly figures for the sociodemographic variables. I do not view using interpolated values as an important limitation. Precise parameter estimates for the control variables are not of




direct concern. In the analysis, 1976 provides a baseline year

- the first execution since 1967 took place in January 1977. The analysis concludes with December 1987 because certain sociodemographic and death penalty data are not yet available for 1988 and 1989. The 1976-1987 time- series spans 144 months.

FINDINGS

The first step in the analysis was to use Ordi- nary Least Squares (OLS) regression procedures to estimate models of the relationship between the amount of execution publicity and homicide rates, 1976-1987. Rates were regressed against the number of monthly executions, the control variables, and each television publicity measure: (1) a dummy (0/1) execution publicity variable, (2) the number of days with execution coverage, and (3) the amount of air time, in minutes, devoted to executions.

The OLS analyses yielded a Durbin-Watson value for each model that falls in the uncer- tainty range for first-order autocorrelation. In addition, exploring lag periods ranging through twelve months, I found significant (p < .05) fourth- and sixth-order autoregressions for each model (SAS Autoregression Procedure). Table 1 shows the results where these autoregressive parameters were fit and Yule-Walker estimates are derived. For purposes of brevity, results for the yearly dummy variables are not reported.

The analysis reveals only a chance association between murder rates and the provision for capital punishment, the level of executions, and each of the television execution publicity variables. These patterns are inconsistent with both the deterrence and brutalization arguments.4

Of note, a chance-only pattern also holds for most of the control variables. This is not sur- prising given the high level of collinearity for most of the sociodemographic factors. How- ever, collinearity problems are not responsible for the contrary findings for the capital punishment variables. When the execution and execution publicity variables are in turn regressed

against the other right hand variables in the models presented in Table 1, the resulting R2 values provide no indication of collinearity problems for any of these factors. The same pattern holds for the qualitative execution publicity variables examined in Table 2.

Alternative Execution Publicity Formulations

To explore further the deterrence and brutalization arguments, I next consider how different types of television execution coverage might influence homicides. Table 2 reports the results of autoregressive analyses (with significant fourth- and sixth-order autocorrelations fit) of monthly offense rates and six dummy variables: (1) whether an artist's drawing was aired of the execution/executed person, (2) whether there was a witness account of the execution, (3) if the executed person's last words were aired, whether the condemned person might be viewed as (4) "deserving" or (5) "not deserving" of capital punishment, and (6) whether there was television coverage of anti-death penalty demonstrations.

Again there is no evidence of deterrence or brutalization. There remains only a chance relationship between the provision for capital punishment, the number of monthly executions and homicide rates. Nor does the type of execution coverage provided significantly increase or decrease the rate of killings. The qualitative execution publicity factors are simply unrelated to homicide rates over the 1976-1987 period.5

CONCLUSION

In this investigation I find no evidence that the amount and/or type of television publicity devoted to executions had a significant deterrent or brutalization effect on homicides during the

4Like Bailey and Peterson (1989), I also explored the possible delayed effect of execution publicity on homicides (for month t+1 through month t+12). For each publicity measure presented in Tables 1 and 2 there is no evidence of a significant delayed deterrent effect (or brutalization effect) associated with the amount and type of execution coverage. Tabular results are available upon request.

I These findings are not affected by alternative formulations of the qualitative measures. For ex- ample, when the range of audiovisual aids used to present execution stories is extended beyond artist drawings to include video tape, photos, and voice recordings, the findings are the same for the deterrence/brutalization hypotheses. And, during three of the ten months when there were televised anti-execution demonstrations, pro-execution demonstrations also received television coverage. When the analysis is repeated excluding the three months where there were both types of demonstrations, there con- tinues to be only a chance association between the protest dummy variable and homicide rates.



632 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

Table 2. Autoregression Analysis of Homicide Rates and Types of Television Coverage of Executions

b b b b b b Predictor Variables (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.)

% metropolitan population -.034 -.035 -.033 -.031 -.026 -.033 (.036) (.036) (.036) (.037) (.036) (.036)

% black population -.251 -.229 -.238 -.238 -.187 -.256 (.197) (.196) (.199) (.200) (.199) (.197)

% 16-34 years of age .0868 .087 .085 .085 .080 .088 (.050)' (.049)' (.050)x (.050)- (.049) (.050)

Divorce rate -.044 -.040 -.044 -.040 -.024 -.045 (.092) (.091) (.091) (.091) (.091) (.092)

% unemployment .008 .008 .008 .008 .010 .008 (.010) (.010) (.010) (.010) (.010) (.010)

% AFDC population .087 .072 .093 .082 .098 .084 (.117) (.117) (.117) (.118) (.116) (.118)

High season variable .067 .069 .067 .067 .066 .067 (.010)- (.010)oy (.010)oy (.01I0) .. (.010 )-- (.01I0)--

Low season variable -.037 -.037 -.038 -.037 -.038 -.037 (.011)- (.01 1)" (.011)- (. I ) ... (.011)- (.011)--

Homicide arrest rate -.016 -.016 -.015 -.016 -.015 -.016 (.007)* (.007)X (.008)- (.007)' (.007)"' (.007)X

% in abolitionist jurisdictions .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 (.003) (.003) (.003) (.003) (.003) (.003)

Number of executions -.004 -.006 -.004 -.004 -.006 -.004 (.005) (.005) (.005) (.005) (.005) (.005)

Artist drawings (0/1) .005 (.018)

Witness accounts (0/1) .021 (.015)

Last words presented (0/1) - .010 (.015)

Deserving offenders (0/1) .080 -

(.018)

Non deserving offenders (0/1) - .028 -

(.018)

Execution protests (0/1) - - .006 (.015)

Intercept 4.480 4.267 4.081 4.123 3.019 4.412 (4.459) (4.418) (4.491) (4.507) (4.517) (4.454)

R2 .87- .87" 8 .87- .87- 8 .87-

1976-1987 period. Television has become the most relied upon source of news in this society. Therefore, if the death penalty is an effective deterrent to murder, one would expect to see evidence of this since our national return to capital punishment over the last dozen or so years.

That the findings do not support the deterrence argument for capital punishment does not come as a total surprise. The results are consis- tent with a long line of capital punishment investigations. However, proponents of capital

punishment may not be persuaded by these findings. Some have argued that over the last few decades executions have been so few in number as to rob capital punishment of its effec- tiveness as a deterrent to murder (van den Haag 1969, 1975, 1978; van den Haag and Conrad 1983; Lehtinen 1977). It is possible that a certain level of execution certainty (a threshold point) must be achieved before executions and execution publicity become effective deterrents to murder, and this level may not have been reached in recent years. Over the 1976-1987




period there were a total of 93 executions; 33 received television news attention. In contrast, during the same period, FBI statistics indicate that there were a total of 53,905 felony-mur- ders (killings that take place during the com- mission of another felony). These are capital homicides in virtually all death penalty jurisdictions. Treated as a measure of the certainty of capital punishment, the ratio of the number of executions to felony-homicides is very small. Thus, what television news coverage may be communicating to the public is that the certainty of capital punishment for murder is quite low. At this point, one can only speculate about the level of executions and the type and amount of media attention required before capital punishment might become effective in decreasing (deterrence) or increasing (brutalization) killings. What does seem clear, however, is that the current level of executions and media prac- tices regarding executions in this country nei- ther discourage nor promote murder.

WILLIAM C. BAILEY received his Ph.D. in Sociology from Washington State University in 1971, and is Professor of Sociology and Associate Dean of the Graduate College at Cleveland State University. His major research interests include crime and deterrence, capital punishment, and urban crime patterns.

REFERENCES

Andenaes, Johannes. 1974. Punishment and Deter- rence. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Bailey, William C. and Ruth D. Peterson. 1989. "Murder and Capital Punishment: A Monthly Time-Series Analysis of Execution Publicity." American Sociological Review 54:722-43.

Bower, Robert T. 1985. The Changing Television Audience in America. New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press.

Comstock, George A., Steven Chaffee, Nathan Katzman, Maxwell McCombs, and Donald Robert. 1978. Television and Human Behavior. New York: Columbia University Press.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1976-1987. Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of- fice.

Gibbs, Jack P. 1975. Crime, Punishment and Deter- rence. New York: Elsevier.

. 1986. "Deterrence Theory and Research." Pp. 87-130 in Nebraska Symposium on Motiva- tion-1985: The Law as a Behavioral Instrument, edited by Gary B. Melton. Lincoln, NE: Univer- sity of Nebraska Press.

King, David R. 1978. "The Brutalizing Effect: Exe- cution Publicity and the Incidence of Homicide in South Carolina." Social Forces 57:683-7.

Lehtinen, M.W. 1977. "The Value of Life - An Ar- gument for the Death Penalty." Crime and Delin- quency 23:237-52.

McFarland, Sam G. 1983. "Is Capital Punishment A Short-Term Deterrent to Homicide?: A Study of the Effects of Four Recent American Executions." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 74:1014-30.

Mediamark Research. 1987. Multimedia Audiences. New York: Mediamark Research, Inc.

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 1988 (March). Death Row, U.S.A. New York: NAACP, L.D.E.F.

Phillips, David P. 1980. "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: New Evidence on an Old Controversy." American Journal of Sociology 86: 139-48.

The Roper Organization. 1983. Trends in Attitudes Towards Television and Other Media: A Twenty Year Review. New York: Television Information Office.

Stack, Steven. 1987. "Publicized Executions and Homicide, 1950-1980." American Sociological Re- view 52:532-40.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1976-1987. Vital Statistics of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

_ 1986-1988. Monthly Vital Statistics Re- port. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service.

U.S. Department of Justice. 1976-1988. Capital Pun- ishment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print- ing Office.

van den Haag, Ernest. 1969. "On Deterrence and the Death Penalty." Journal of Criminal Law, Crimi- nology and Police Science 60:141-7.

_ 1975. Punishing Criminals: Concerning a Very Old and Painful Question. New York: Basic Books.

. 1978. "In Defense of the Death Penalty: A Legal-Practical-Moral Analysis." Criminal Law Bulletin 14:51-68.

van den Haag, Ernest and John Conrad. 1983. The Death Penalty: A Debate. New York: Plenum Press.

Vanderbilt Television News Index and Abstracts. 1977-1988. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Television News Archive.



Documents

Murder, Capital Punishment, and Television: Execution Publicity and Homicide Rates