DB #2 Student Post Respond

DB #2: 2nd STUDENT POST

Iddrisu Ibrahim 

Deterrence Scaring Offenders Straight

Top of Form

Deterrence Theory: Pros, Cons, and Improvements

        Deterrence theory assumes offenders are rational and that they calculate the risk of being caught, prosecuted, and sentenced before deciding to commit a crime. A

few of the pros and cons of deterrence theory are identified while highlighting additional value this theory can have at the national level in combatting counterterrorism.

Pros of a Pure Deterrence Theory Correctional Policy

      As deterrence theory is defined today, several studies have shown that there are few advantages of control-oriented interventions that aim to deter offenders from

reoffending (Cullen & Jonson, 2017, p. 98). However, in general, punishment is a reasonable response to violations of social norms. Realizing its utilitarian purpose,

deterrence theory can achieve justice and restore social balance. Also, as a key correctional policy of deterrence theory, mandatory sentencing would remove discretion

and personal bias at the prosecutorial and judicial level (Cullen & Jonson, 2017, p. 17).

Cons of a Pure Deterrence Theory Correctional Policy

       Deterrence theory does not explain extenuating circumstances or the motivation to commit crime which can be problematic. Individual differences, such as

personality and circumstances, inject variations in the consequences that people are aware of, accentuate, and are willing to accept (Cullen & Jonson, 2017, p. 78). Despite

the public’s lack of ability to identify punishment levels with any precision (Nixon & Barnes, 2019; Thomas et al., 2017), even when some are aware of laws and policies in

place, they still decide to commit a criminal act. For example, emigrants fleeing peril in their countries, fully aware of the dangers they are likely to encounter, still choose

to illegally cross the border between Mexico and the United States (Hiskey et al., 2018). Despite the strong political message including border enforcement, migrant

detention, and expedited deportation, the violence in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras has employed a powerful influence on refugees’ emigration calculus.

       We should acknowledge God’s sovereignty with our set of circumstances. We should trust in the Lord when we are confronting our enemies and facing situations that

challenge our moral and religious beliefs, even those that are life-threatening (Christian Standard Bible, 1769/2017, 2 Chronicles 20:6-15).

Improvements to Deterrence Theory

          Changes in the international security environment have altered the context for deterrence. At the national level, the fundamentals of deterrence theory should be

reexamined to better fit into today’s modern world that is faced with emerging forms of warfare including threats to American security posed by transnational terrorists,

military strategies and capabilities, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (Chilton & Weaver, 2009). Unless the source of cyber-attacks can be determined,

the attackers may perceive that their criminal acts involve little risk and significant gain. Innovative processes need to be developed to enhance collaboration with

America’s allies to enhance deterrence. An improved deterrence theory would examine the interests and motives of potential criminals at the local, state, federal levels.

Deterrence should involve the shaping of perceptions so that potential criminals see the alternatives to crime or aggressive acts (i.e., conformity) as a more attractive

alternative.

Bottom of Form