Daniel S. Nagin · Figshare 2018 · narrative review · n=?

Deterrence in the Twenty-first Century: A Review of the Evidence

Cited 32 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Level 5 by design analogy (narrative literature review and theoretical synthesis without systematic review methodology reported in abstract)

OpenAlex W260138733 · doi:10.1184/r1/6471200.v1 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

The author synthesized empirical literature evaluating deterrence theory, comparing the deterrent effects of punishment certainty versus punishment severity, and outlined key theoretical and empirical gaps in the literature. The abstract does not specify search criteria, screening methods, or the number of analyzed studies.

What was found

The abstract reports no numerical findings, sample sizes, or effect estimates. Qualitatively, it reports that evidence supporting the deterrent effect of punishment certainty pertains almost exclusively to the probability of apprehension, whereas evidence supporting punishment severity is inconsistent. Consequently, lengthy prison terms and mandatory minimum sentences cannot be justified on deterrence grounds. Four key research gaps were identified: the mechanism by which police affect apprehension risk perceptions, the criminogenic effects of experiencing punishment, models reflecting multi-component sanction regimes, and the link between sanction regimes and individual risk perceptions.

Why it matters

This synthesis argues that resources aimed at deterrence are more effectively deployed toward increasing the likelihood of apprehension rather than lengthening prison sentences or enforcing mandatory minimums.

Limits

The abstract provides a narrative summary without systematic review methods, study counts, or quantitative effect sizes. It relies on generalized conclusions without reporting the quality, heterogeneity, or statistical precision of the underlying primary studies.

Cited by