It may be, as suggested by Zeisel, that the reason proponents of the death penalty have not been able to offer a convincing case is that if there is an effect, it is so small as to defy measurement using the tools currently available to the social scientist. It might be argued as well that if better measurement tools were available, the results might just as likely prove the brutalization hypothesis as the deterrence hypothesis. A point that most writers on the topic ignore is that it can be argued that deterrence and brutalization occur simultaneously, such that some people are deterred and some are brutalized by the same event. The possibility of this outcome greatly complicates the issue and reinforces Zeisel's conclusion that we may never know the true relationship. It would seem, however, that for those who advocate the use of the death penalty as a deterrent, the responsibility is once again upon them to provide empirical support for their position. Twenty-three notes are listed.