Prefer my Lindo and Stoecker on crime because they were able to verify their results and their study was long term. Lindo and Stoecker 2010 profs of Economics at Univ of Oregon and UC Davis — [Drawn into Violence: Evidence on a from the Vietnam Draft Lotteries, July 2010, ‘What Makes Criminal’ July 5, 2016] [Premier] First, instead of using a cross-cohort differences and 4 Our study offers several advantages over this pioneering study. differences framework we focus solely on within cohort variation provided by the draft lotteries. Thus, able to use non-affected cohorts to verify that our results are not driven we are as a robustness check by the particular sets of birthdays Second, selected in the drafts. our outcome variable lends itself to a natural interpretation. it provides a direct estimate of the effect of draft eligibility on the probability of Specifically, incarceration Third, we explore longer-run effects and enhance the precision of our in the survey years. estimates by expanding the sample inmates to include incarcerated in 1986 and 1991 in addition to those incarcerated in Finally, we present a comprehensive exploration of the effects of draft on crime by 1979. eligibility separately considering its effects on violent crime, drug-related crime, and property-related crime, and public order crime.
Prefer my Lindo and Stoecker on crime because they were able to verify their results and their study was long term. Lindo and Stoecker 2010 — profs of Economics at Univ of Oregon and UC Davis [Drawn into Violence: Evidence on ‘What Makes a Criminal’ from the Vietnam Draft Lotteries, July 2010, July 5, 2016] [Premier] 4 Our study offers several advantages over this pioneering study. First, instead of using a cross-cohort differences and differences framework we focus solely on within cohort variation provided by the draft lotteries. Thus, we are able to use non-affected cohorts as a robustness check to verify that our results are not driven by the particular sets of birthdays selected in the drafts. Second, our outcome variable lends itself to a natural interpretation. Specifically, it provides a direct estimate of the effect of draft eligibility on the probability of incarceration in the survey years. Third, we explore longer-run effects and enhance the precision of our estimates by expanding the sample to include inmates incarcerated in 1986 and 1991 in addition to those incarcerated in 1979. Finally, we present a comprehensive exploration of the effects of draft eligibility on crime by separately considering its effects on violent crime, drug-related crime, and property-related crime, and public order crime.
Premier-Debate-Brief-SO17.docx