SOME STUDIES HAVE failed tonfind that executions have any success inndeterring homicides. But according tonsociologist Steven Stack of AuburnnUniversity in the American SociologicalnReview (August 1987, vol. 52, pp.n532-540), those studies have beennmethodologically flawed by the highlynquestionable assumption “that thenpublic is more or less aware of executionsnand that they are well-informednof every execution.” They have thereforenneglected to test “the thesis thatnthe deterrent effect of executions is anfunction of the amount of media exposurengiven to executions.” “If the publicnis unaware of executions,” Stacknnotes, “they can have very little impactnon homicide.”nSetting out to compensate for thatnerror. Stack compared murder rates innmonths with highly (and nationally)npublicized execution stories with thosenin months without such stories. Over anperiod from 1950 to 1980, he foundnthat in 16 different months in whichnwidely-reported executions took place,nan average of 30 fewer people werenmurdered than in an ordinary month.nPublicity, as Stack hypothesized, was anvital ingredient. Nearly 600 littlepublicizednexecutions in the study hadnscant effect on the homicide rate. Butn”[i]n all but four cases, the expectednnumber of homicides in months withn[well-publicized] execution stories isngreater than the actual number —nresults we would anticipate from thenstandpoint of the deterrence view.”nStack cautions against too-high expectationsnfor deterring murder withncapital punishment, noting amongnother things that “as executions becomenmore common, the amount ofnpress coverage tends to decline,” andnpredicting that an expanded number ofnexecutions “will perform more of anretribution than a deterrence funchon.”nThat is not as bad as it sounds.nRetribution must be the first object ofnthe death penalty; if it were not the justnreward of murderers, then no amountnof deterrence would justify its application.nBut it is also good to know thatnsome 30 American citizens will remainn8/CHRONICLESnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSnalive because Theodore Bundy, as ofnsunrise last January 24, does not. (MK)nNONE DARE CALL IT TREAsonnwhen a former US President intriguesnwith the head of an unfriendlynforeign government. But when JimmynCarter met with Sandinista leadernDaniel Ortega on February 2, VicenPresident Quayle had the courage tonsay: “Obviously, when you have anformer President meeting with headsnof state we don’t meet with, it has anchance of complicating matters.” Tonsay the least.nBoth Carter and the Vice Presidentnwere in Caracas attending the inaugurationnof Venezuela’s new president,nbut while Mr. Quayle was on officialnbusiness, Mr. Carter was only a touristnplaying at diplomacy. It’s a game thatnvirtually anybody can play: Jesse Jackson,nJim Wright, Armand Hammer,nDr. Bernard Lown. The only troublenis, it is patently illegal. The Logan Actnof 1799 was designed to prevent justnthis sort of usurpation of executivenfunctions, and it does not matter if thenusurper is a Soviet-loving physician, anSoviet-loving businessman, a shiftynpolitician, or an ex-President. This isnnot Mr. Carter’s first offense. Twonyears ago, he and Gerald Ford arrangedna conference in Atlanta, at which theyncollogued with Soviet representativesnand did their best to portray the UnitednStates as the chief obstacle to armsnreduction. Carter even openly contradictednNavy Secretary John Lehman’sndescription of Soviet treaty violations.nMr. Carter should be tried, convictednon his own testimony, and given thenmaximum sentence.nThe paltry fine ($5,000) and prisonnterm (three years) might deter futurenamateurs from meddling into affairs ofnstate, but beyond that the United Statesnneeds to rethink its treason laws, whichnhave always erred on the side of timidity.nIt is difficult to imagine any greatnnation in history tolerating such intriguesnbetween leading citizens andnthe heads of foreign and unfriendlyngovernments.nnnThe great Athenian statesman,nThemistocles, was exiled on just such ancharge, and in the reign of Charles IInthe Eari of Danby was impeached onncharges of high treason, because asntreasurer he had written a letter to hisnambassador to France, instructing himnto cut a secret deal with Louis XIV.nThe first charge against Danby wasnthat he had engrossed royal power bynconducting affairs of state without thenparticipation of the secretaries of statenor the Privy Council.nA more recent and more familiarncase is the Norwegian statesmannVidkun Quisling, who as a leader of anparty out of power intrigued with thenGermans, who eventually installed himnas their puppet ruler. Of course, Mr.nCarter does not expect such favorsnfrom Daniel Ortega or his Sovietnfriends. It is reward enough to be backnon the evening news. (TF)n”I’M TIRED of having to go to thenoffice armed,” my wife said one daynlast March. She was not alone in goingnarmed—especially not since the localnchapter of the American Civil LibertiesnUnion had entered the case of then”Center City Stalker,” a young blacknman who had committed a series ofnrobberies and sexual assaults betweennJanuary and March of 1988 in CenternCity, Philadelphia. Rumors circulatedneach day of additional attacks that hadnnot been publicized in order to preventnwholesale panic.nCenter City was blanketed with policensketches of the suspect, and many anyoung black man took a trip to policenheadquarters for questioning becausenof a resemblance to the man in thensketch.nThis was too close to fascism for thencomfort of the local ACLU, whichnsought an injunction in federal court tonprevent the police from taking peoplenin just because they looked like thenman in the sketch — translation: justnbecause they’re black. The police departmentnand the city caved in to thisnlegalistic lunacy, agreeing in an out-ofcourtnsettlement not to take in anyonen