RESOURCES & RESEARCH
Resource Database
Access verified academic sources, key articles, and annotated bibliographies exploring the statistical reality of deterrence for EIU student research projects.
This annotated bibliography highlights key studies and reports you can use to understand why the death penalty fails as a deterrent and to check claims you see in class, media, or politics.
A Tribute to David Baldus, a Determined and Relentless Champion of Doing Justice
Bowers, W. J. (2012) Iowa Law Review, 97, 1879–1904. https://research-ebsco-com.proxy1.library.eiu.edu/linkprocessor/plink?id=beb86bfd-384b-3478-8d22-a52aea72d063
This source explains the shortcomings in Ehrlich’s research, which was used in an argument by the Solicitor General in Gregg v. Georgia in support of the death penalty due to its deterrence affects. The author found that when dropping the last eight years of the 1960s from Ehrlich’s analysis, from 1922-1962, the result was a statistically significant increase in homicides after 95% of executions were imposed. These results were consistent with a brutalizing effect of the death penalty, rather than a deterrent effect. Since the faulty character of Ehrlich’s data casts doubt on the apparent brutalizing effect, the author conducted a separate study, which found there were statistically significant two more homicides than expected in the month immediately following an execution.
What Do Panel Studies Tell Us About a Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment? A Critique of the Literature
Chalfin, A., Haviland, A., & Raphael, S. (2013). Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(1), 5–43. https://doi-org.proxy1.library.eiu.edu/10.1007/s10940-012-9168-8
This source details a critical review and analysis of panel studies that researched the deterrent effects of capital punishment. This article reports several basic methodological issues in the panel studies, such as questionable exclusion restrictions, failing to control for obvious factors, weak instruments, and incorrect calculation of standard errors, which leads to faulty statistical interference. The authors found that panel research on whether there is a deterrent effect to the death penalty is inconclusive, and uninformative in many cases.
What Do Panel Studies Tell Us About a Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment? A Critique of the Literature
Chalfin, A., Haviland, A., & Raphael, S. (2013). Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(1), 5–43. https://doi-org.proxy1.library.eiu.edu/10.1007/s10940-012-9168-8
This source details a critical review and analysis of panel studies that researched the deterrent effects of capital punishment. This article reports several basic methodological issues in the panel studies, such as questionable exclusion restrictions, failing to control for obvious factors, weak instruments, and incorrect calculation of standard errors, which leads to faulty statistical interference. The authors found that panel research on whether there is a deterrent effect to the death penalty is inconclusive, and uninformative in many cases.
A National Study of the Furman-Commuted Inmates: Assessing the Threat to Society from Capital Offenders
Marquart, J.W. and Sorensen, J.R. (1989). 23 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 5. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol23/iss1/2
This source is a descriptive analysis study on the post-release and institutional behavior of all 558 inmates whose sentences were commuted by the Furman v. Georgia case. Of the inmates who had their sentences commuted by Furman, 474 were convicted of capital murder, 81 were convicted of rape, and 4 were convicted of armed robbery. 243 (44%) of the Furman-commuted inmates have been released, and of these 191 (78.6%) have not been returned to prison: 147 are on original parole, 19 discharged their sentences, 17 completed parole, 6 died, and two were pardoned. Only 52 (21%) of the releases were returned to prison for technical violations of parole or new offenses, and of these 42 are incarcerated, 8 are on parole, and 2 have died. Of the 239 paroled offenders, one killed again, and two rapists raped again The. low recidivism rate for capital offenders proves that the death penalty is not necessary as a specific deterrent to crime, because most murderers do not murder again.
Econometric Estimates of Deterrence of the Death Penalty: Facts or Ideology?
Kirchgässner, G. (2011).Kyklos, 64(3), 448–478. https://doi-org.proxy1.library.eiu.edu/10.1111/j.1467-6435.2011.00515.x
This source analyzes and criticizes econometric estimates about deterrence and the death penalty. The article then analyzes an econometric study by Adler and Summers, which found that from 1979 to 2004, each execution seemed to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year after the execution. The author demonstrates the faultiness of the studies’ method, by using the data and methodology used in the study – and OLS regression and contemptuous execution data from 1979 to 2004 to produce the opposite results. After conducting this analysis, and analyzing other studies, the author concluded that the studies effects of deterrence were inconclusive due to the methods used and that the studies would not be relevant for policy purposes.
Tennessee’s Death Penalty Lottery
MacLean, B. A., & Miller Jr., H. E. (2018). Tennessee Journal of Law & Policy, 13(1), 85–181. https://research-ebsco-com.proxy1.library.eiu.edu/linkprocessor/plink?id=d16b1199-1a00-3866-ba3e-14fc7f508ece
This source discusses the arbitrariness of Tennessee’s revised death penalty statutes, which were based off Georgia’s revised death penalty statutes that were upheld in Gregg v. Georgia. The article discusses a survey conducted by Miller, in which he reviewed all 2,514 first-degree murder cases in Tennessee, decided in the 40 years since Tennessee’s current statutes were implemented in 1977 to determine the degree of arbitrariness of Tennessee’s system. Miller found only 192 of the defendants in those cases were sentenced to death, only 86 of those sentences were sustained, and only 6 defendants were executed. This proves that the new death penalty statutes are extremely arbitrary, which disproves the myth that the death penalty deters crime because the punishment is not certain.
It’s Been 40 Years Since the Supreme Court Tried to Fix the Death Penalty—Here’s How It Failed
Mandery, E. J. (2016, March 30). The Marshall Project. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/03/30/it-s-been-40-years-since-the-supreme-court-tried-to-fix-the-death-penalty-here-s-why-it-failed
This source discusses the Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia cases in detail, as well as the aftermath.After Gregg was decided, annual executions peaked in 1998 and 1999 and has since then been steadily declining. Death sentences have also been declining – in 1995 and 1996, more than 300 people were given death sentences, and by 2015 only 73 people were given death sentences. Between 1973 and 2013, only 16.1% of people who are sentenced to death were executed. This source proves that the death penalty is not a certain punishment, and therefore, it cannot be and is not and effective deterrent to crime.
Estimating the Effect of Death Penalty Moratoriums on Homicide Rates Using the Synthetic Control Method
Oliphant, S. N. (2022).Criminology & Public Policy, 21(4), 915–944. https://doi-org.proxy1.library.eiu.edu/10.1111/1745-9133.12601.
This source details a study that utilized a synthetic control approach to compare the homicide rates in four states that have moratoriums on the death penalty (Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington) by comparing them to similar states that still utilize the death penalty to determine what the homicide rate of the state would be if it did not have a moratorium on the death penalty. The study found estimated reductions in all four states following death penalty moratoriums, compared to the synthetic states. This study proves that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to homicide, because the homicide rate is higher in states with the death penalty. This study also discusses that the death penalty focuses on the element of severity and suggests that a focus on certainty is a more conductive deterrent. to homicide.
Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of the Experts
Radelet, M. L. & Akers, R. L. (1996)., 87 J. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1). Deterrence and the Death Penalty_ The Views of the Experts.pdf
This source details a study conducted by Radelet and Akers, in which they addressed the question of whether the death penalty deters crime, specifically homicide, by gauging the informed opinions of the top criminologists in the United States. Their study consisted of sixty-seven total current and former presidents of criminological organizations: 27 from the Academy of Criminal Justices Sciences (ACJS), 26 from the American Society of Criminology (ASC), and 15 from the Law and Society Association (LSA). The respondents were clearly asked to answer questions based on their knowledge of existing research and literature in criminology. The majority of the respondents (87.5%) believe that the death penalty does not have deterrent effects on homicide.
Studies on Deterrence, Debunked
(2012). Death Penalty Information Center. Retrieved March 8, 2026, from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/policy/deterrence/discussion-of-recent-deterrence-studies
This report of The National Resource Council of the National Academies’ review of three decades of research on studies claiming a deterrent effect of the death penalty found that the studies are fundamentally flawed. The report found that the studies contained three fundamental flaws: they fail to analyze the effectiveness of noncapital punishments in deterring homicide, the studies use implausible or incomplete models to analyze perpetrators perceptions of and response to the death penalty, and the statistical models used make non-credible assumptions to estimate the effects of the death penalty.
What to Know: Deterrence and the Death Penalty
(2026). Death Penalty Information Center. Retrieved March 29, 2026, from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/what-to-know-deterrence-and-the-death-penalty
This source provides key facts about the deterrent effects of the death penalty. In states that have abolished the death penalty, murder rates follow national trends, rather than decreasing or increasing after abolition. All countries that are members of the European Union have abolished the death penalty, and every single country has lower murder rates than the United States. As of 2018, ten out of the eleven countries that had abolished the death penalty between 2008 and 2018 had experienced declines in murder rate after abolition. This source provides many statistics that prove the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to murder.
Annotated Bibliography
The Homicide Rate Paradox
Radelet, M. L. & Lacock, T. L. (2025)
[Paste citation and short notes about why this source is relevant to EIU scholarship here.]
Core Theories of Deterrence
Academic Press Review 2024
[Paste full citations and brief evaluative notes about key deterrence themes here.]
Legacy of Retribution
Fagan, J. (2026). Legal Studies.
[Space for paste: Brief evaluate the historical context of retribution vs deterrence here.]
Key Articles
Pulling Levers Focused Deterrence Strategies and the Prevention of Gun Homicide.
Braga, A. A. (2008).Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(4), 332–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.06.009
This source details the problem-oriented policing approach, which is a better alternative to the death penalty.
High Court is Urged by Bork to Restore Capital Punishment
Oelsner, L. (1976).The New York Times. Retrieved March 17, 2026, from https://www.nytimes.com/1976/04/01/archives/high-court-is-urged-by-bork-to-restore-capital-punishment.html
This source details how Solicitor General Robert Bork used Ehrlich's research to defend the death penalty in Gregg v. Georgia.
More Resources
The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice
Kappeler, V. E., & Potter, G. W. (2018).(Fifth edition). Waveland Press.
This source is a book explaining and debunking myths about crime and the criminal justice system. Chapter 13 explains myths about the death penalty, including the myth of deterrence.
More Resources
Annotated Bibliography
Access our curated list of scholarly sources with detailed citations and critical summaries specifically for EIU research students.
Key Articles
Hand-picked foundational articles from leading criminologists covering deterrence theory and statistical evidence against the death penalty.
External Databases
Primary source materials from DPIC and Amnesty International for verified execution data and global abolition trends.
Case Studies
Examine specific instances of wrongful conviction and the failure of capital punishment to prevent violent crime through real-world examples.
Broaden Your Research
Access the curated Annotated Bibliography, Key Articles, and More Resources. Space is reserved below for Eastern Illinois University students to paste citations and academic notes on the evolving discourse of capital punishment and the deterrence myth.
Annotated Bibliography Placeholder
[Paste citations here]
Key Articles Placeholder
[Paste citations here]