Abstract This paper is a complete description of the theory of deterrence and crime. Both aspects of the deterrence issue are examined in depth visa via current theories in criminology. This paper presents an extensive review by way of a research study. This paper then draws its conclusions with respect to the efficacy of the theory of deterrence as well.
From the Paper "In the May 1993 issue of the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Stafford and Warr introduced the re-conceptualized deterrence theory by explaining that general and specific deterrence are both functions of crime. Both of these sociologists presented the argument that there is no reason to have multiple theories for general and specific deterrence. Instead they proposed the idea that a single theory is possible that centers on two levels; namely, indirect experiences involving legal punishment and punishment avoidance; and direct experiences with legal punishment and avoidance (Stafford & Warr, 1993). They furthered their argument by stating that general deterrence includes the knowledge of criminal activity performed by others as well as the consequences or absence of consequences from the specified criminal activity."
Abstract This paper discusses the opinions of many after September 11th, that the present form of terrorism has made classical deterrence theory outdated. According to the paper transnational terrorism has totally dented conventional wisdom, which had dictated proceedings during the cold war. Similarly, rogue states all over the world, in general, and the Middle East and South Asia, in particular, have created a great deal of tension in Washington. The paper further discusses how the role of the American rival states, such as, North Korea and China and the functions and limitations of the UN Security Council have completely transformed the security structure of the sole hyper power of the world. This paper tries to elucidate the best possible deterrence strategy the United States should pursue after the cold war.
Outline:
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Justification of the Study
Research Design and Methodology
Collection of Data
Data Analysis and Search Tactics
Limitations of the Study
Part 2
Transnational Terrorism
The Rogue and the Rival States
The U.N. Security Council
Conclusion of This Section
Part 3
Literature Review
Classical Deterrence Theory
The End of Cold War deterrence A New Justification
Conclusion of This Section
Part 4
The First Case Study: The Strategic Triangle (US/China/Russia)
The Sino-Russo Partnership
The US-Russian Labyrinth: A Subtle Relationship
The Source for Cooperation and Divergence
Effect of the End of Cold War
Conclusion of This Section
The Second Case Study: Deterring North Korea
US Policy on the Korean Peninsula Since 1945
The Future of the U.S. Foreign Policy on the Korean Peninsula
The Status Quo Option
The Hard-Line Option
Compromise
Early Bush Administration Policy
Conclusion
The third Case Study: Transnational Terrorism
Counter-terrorism in a Global Society
Conclusion
Part 5
Observation and Conclusion
Correcting the Strategic Gaps in the U.S. Approach to Homeland Defense Concentrating Less on Who is Responsible and More on What They Ought to be Responsible of
Planning for Higher-Probability, Lower-Consequence, and Lower-Probability, Higher-Consequence Events
From the Paper "At the threat of generalization, one could make a case that US relations with China were greatly powered by two issues: the vicissitudes in the Sino-Russo association and--the more significant of the two--the Taiwan problem. For 30 years following the "People's Republic of China" (PRC) emergence in 1949, the United States carried on to acknowledge the adversary Chinese government (the Republic of China, or ROC) that had moved to Taiwan after trailing behind the civil conflict on the mainland. The path to ultimate US standardization with the PRC in 1979 was cemented by US President Richard Nixon, whose striking plan was to build a coalition with China--which was, at that time, in conflict with the Soviet Union--in an effort to oppose the increasing Soviet threat. However the United States, in spite of everything, maintains informal relations with the Republic of China. Certainly, under the "Taiwan Relations Act," a piece of internal US legislation, Washington is under a duty to defend Taiwan's safety and therefore carry on arms sales to the isle .
Washington's Taiwan association has bedeviled its dealings with the Republic of China from this time onwards, even more so following 1988 when Taiwan's political leadership demonstrated growing inclinations in the direction of a separatist route outside the One China state-of-affairs. All through a brief disagreement amid mainland China and Taiwan in 1996, the United States sent off two naval battle factions to the Taiwan channel to demonstrate moral cooperation for Taiwan (and maybe to gratify President Clinton's congressional associates). An unintentional war with China was hardly prevented only with the sensible removal of the US carrier Independence, at the same time as, the second carrier, the Nimitz, was still on its route as of the Mediterranean Sea. The narrow escape drove home the Republic of China's sincerity in relation to Taiwan to the Clinton management, forcing it to assume a soul-searching evaluation of Sino-US strategy. The concluding decision for Clinton's "thoroughgoing" engagement policy concerning the Chinese, which he practiced all through his second presidential tenure, was to prevent himself from being heaved into an unintentional war with China on behalf of Taiwan ."
Abstract This paper discusses how the death penalty continues to be a highly controversial issue with most Americans and its deterrent effect has still not been absolutely determined. This paper concludes that it is clear that the death penalty does serve society quite well under certain circumstances, but in reality, society must begin to understand the reasons why people commit violent crimes and determine how to change a person's violent tendencies which in the end will make the death penalty unnecessary.
From the Paper "One of the most controversial issues in today's America has to do with the question as to whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. Many of those that support the death penalty argue that execution, whether by lethal injection, the electric chair or hanging, is the most suitable penalty for persons who have committed atrocious crimes like first-degree murder, rape or the murder of a child. The main contention for these supporters is that the convicted person deserves punishment that is comparable to the crime; in addition, supporters of the death penalty argue that such an action demonstrates society's adherence to moral principles. According to Robert Bidinotto, such crimes as premeditated murder "is a crime in a class by itself," for it "negates the highest moral end of a civil society," being human life (156)."
Abstract This paper discusses how the death penalty continues to be a highly controversial issue with most Americans and its deterrent effect has still not been absolutely determined. This paper concludes that it is clear that the death penalty does serve society quite well under certain circumstances, but in reality, society must begin to understand the reasons why people commit violent crimes and determine how to change a person's violent tendencies which in the end will make the death penalty unnecessary.
From the Paper "One of the most controversial issues in today's America has to do with the question as to whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. Many of those that support the death penalty argue that execution, whether by lethal injection, the electric chair or hanging, is the most suitable penalty for persons who have committed atrocious crimes like first-degree murder, rape or the murder of a child. The main contention for these supporters is that the convicted person deserves punishment that is comparable to the crime; in addition, supporters of the death penalty argue that such an action demonstrates society's adherence to moral principles. According to Robert Bidinotto, such crimes as premeditated murder "is a crime in a class by itself," for it "negates the highest moral end of a civil society," being human life (156)."
Abstract In this article, the writer maintains that although polls must be seen only as a reflection, it is clear that Americans see death as a justifiable punishment for the worst sorts of criminal homicides. As a result, the writer notes that the controversy of whether or not this is a deterrent against crime rages on and on. The writer points out that opponents continue to conduct studies to prove that one crime does not make up for another, while proponents continue to conduct studies to justify their belief system. Following a review of relevant literature the writer concludes that there is no consistency among the studies that are done to determine the impact of the death penalty.
From the Paper "Mendes and McDonald thus argued that the empirical ambiguity with respect to sentence severity arises because sometimes the empirical formulation of deterrence theory fails to keep the theoretical package intact. Especially, statistical models that isolate the components through the use of separate, additive elements do not account for the expected cost calculation as specified in the theory. Sentence length does not work apart from the probability of arrest and conviction. Instead, the three elements work together."
"Neither certainty nor severity of punishment can substitute for the other...any deterrent impact of certainty depends on the level of severity. Most likely, severity by itself cannot replace certainty, but the opposite is equally true. Models that do not reflect the combination of all deterrence elements fail to translate the theory and are likely to fall short of finding a significant effect for all of the components."
Abstract This paper presents many arguments in opposition to the death penalty as a deterrent. The author asks if in fact the death penalty does serve as a deterrent, why do the many Western countries that have abolished the death penalty have lower murder rates than jurisdictions in the United States that still considers it a viable punishment. The author believes that while the death penalty may serve as a retribution, there is little sociological evidence to support that someone is deterred more by the prospect of being executed than the prospect of a life sentence without possibility of parole.
Table of Contents
Effectiveness of the Death Penalty as a Deterrent to Criminal Homicide
Pros and Cons of Death Penalty
Cost of Life Sentence without Parole vs. the Death Penalty
Recidivism
States That Impose the Death Penalty and Form of Execution
Retribution, the Family and Society
Conclusion
From the Paper "The effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent depends on the degree to which the average criminal actually weighs the consequences of his behavior prior to acting. Criminal homicide is loosely divided into categories based upon level of intention. To the extent that criminal homicide is unintentional or in the heat of passion, the criminal does not weigh consequences at all; and so the criminal would not be deterred by the death penalty. To the extent that criminal homicide is intentional or premeditated, a number of psychological mindsets are possible beforehand. The criminal might assume he will get away with it (and therefore, he does not need to worry about possible punishments). Or, the criminal might think he will get caught."
Abstract This paper closely examines the different methods of punishment that include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation and societal protection. The paper describes how each punishment works, whether it deters crime or possibly results in further crimes, and which presents the best option for punishing criminals. The paper concludes that rehabilitation is the best deterrent to criminal acts, and although it is treating the symptom as opposed to the disease, better education and jobs cannot be anything but positive.
Outline:
Retribution
Deterrence Rehabilitation
Social Protection
From the Paper "Deterrence is based upon the idea that criminals are reasoning human beings, who commit criminal acts because it is a rational choice for them to do so: the demographics suggesting that criminal acts are prompted by social goals (such as Merton's 'Strain' theory: "Innovation involves accepting the cultural goal (financial success), but rejecting the conventional means (hard work at a 'straight' job), in favor of unconventional means (street crime)" (Macionis, 2006). By making the risk of punishment greater than the reward, deterrence implies that criminals will make a conscious choice between crime and remaining law abiding. This idea ignores issues about environment, poverty, and social pressure."
Reviews three postions on the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to the commission of capital crimes. Concludes that there is a deterrent effect.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 4 sources, 1997, $ 23.95
Introduction
There are two basic arguments favoring capital punishment. The first argument focuses on doing justice, on ensuring that the punishment fits the crime. The second argument emphasizes capital punishment as a deterrent to other members of the community who might commit crimes in the future.
Other Societies
Although the evidence in this country is confusing about the deterrent effect of capital punishment, some writers argue that the experience of other countries indicates that capital punishment can be quite effective in deterring certain kinds of ..."
Examines three successes (Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis and the China-Taiwan Crisis) and three failures (WWII, the Korean War and Serbia) of efforts to deter war through military strength.
2,250 words (approx. 9 pages), 10 sources, 1999, $ 79.95
Abstract Deterrence is the effort to avoid war by creating such strength on one side of the conflict that the other side does not challenge, and so peace is maintained. The various ways of attempting deterrence, and at different times, we have characterized in different terms.
From the Paper "INTRODUCTION
Deterrence is the effort to avoid war by creating such strength on one side of the conflict that the other side does not challenge, and so peace is maintained. The various ways of attempting deterrence, and at different times, we have characterized in different terms. Sometimes we have been successful in deterring aggression and in preventing war, while perhaps just as often we have failed to deter as desired and have become embroiled in a war we tried to prevent. Three of the failures of this century are seen in the onset of World War II, the Korean War, and Serbia. Three successes can be seen in the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the threat that China would attack Taiwan."
Abstract This paper explains that the U.S. Supreme Court decision "Roper v. Simmons" (2005) holds that the death penalty for juveniles is "cruel and unusual" and as such, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution forbid the execution of offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. The author points out that the advocates for juvenile death penalty argue that a murder committed by a 16 or 17 year old is as gruesome as that committed by an adult and that individuals exhibit different ranges of maturity thus some 17 year olds may be more "mature" than other 20 year olds. The paper states that, in opposition to the juvenile death penalty, psychologists and behavioral scientists have long known that adolescents do not yet have a brain ability to reason as adults do, are 'wired' to behave more irrationally than adults and are subjected to hormonal instability.
Table of Contents
Arguments for Juvenile Death Penalty
A Murder is a Murder
Case-to-Case Basis
Deterrence No Consensus
Arguments against Juvenile Death Penalty
Brain Development
Raging Hormones
Adolescents are Similar to Mentally-Retarded People
Death Penalty is no Deterrent for Juvenile Offenders
No Death Penalty does not mean Complete Clemency for Offenders
Public Opinion
International Stance
Conclusion
From the Paper "The alleged evidence quoted by anti-capital punishment advocates that death penalty is not a deterrent is inconclusive. The threat of being put to death as a result of committing murder has always proved to be a deterrent throughout human history. There is no reason to assume that such deterrence does not apply to juveniles. As an example, Christopher Simmons (of the Roper v. Simmons fame) was 17 at the time when he and a 15-year old broke into the home of the victim (Shirley Crook) in Missouri; they bound up the woman with electrical wire and pushed her into a river to die. While planning the burglary and murder, Simmons told his friends that even if he were caught, nothing would happen to him because he was a juvenile. If he had known that he would be facing the death penalty he would surely have not committed the crime."
Abstract This paper explains that, throughout American history, the death penalty has been voted in and out of favor depending on politics, societal attitudes and what horrific crimes recently made the news. The author points out that opponents of the death penalty cite that it is used after the crime has been committed, thus it can not act as a deterrent; however, this same argument can be applied to all types of criminals and sentences. The paper concludes that the death penalty is a fair and just punishment for the worst crime against society because (1) public majority, the Bible and the law all allow for the death penalty and (2) the death penalty works as a deterrent as indicated in the drop to an all-time low number of premeditated murders since its reinstatement more than two decades ago.
From the Paper "There are several things that the convicted criminal has that the victim was not given. One of those things is the judicial process. The criminal who has been convicted of a crime horrific enough to receive the death penalty gets many chances at appealing the sentence before it is actually carried out. The appeals process can take years to complete which gives many opportunities to prove any wrongful conviction. In the years that it takes to file the appeals and go through that process the criminal has time to build sympathy and get groups working to stop the execution."
Abstract This paper discusses whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to violent crimes. It examines both sides of the debate in order to determine if the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime or if it is simply a waste of taxpayer money. The paper presents sociological studies supporting both sides of this aspect of the death penalty debate.
Table of Contents:
Comparative Studies
Econometric Studies
How do we Decide Who is Right?
Conclusion
From the Paper "On the other hand, opponents cannot disprove a causal relationship either. However, the burden of proof is not upon them. If they can discredit the argument of the other side by presenting conflicting results and inconclusive evidence, then their argument is supported by default. The original research question was whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. If one considers the lack of positive proof, then the answer would have to favor those that say it does not. Therefore, one could support the position that due to a lack of substantial evidence that the death penalty deters crime, the practice of the death penalty must be reconsidered in support of less severe punishment. Those that oppose the death penalty do so based on a lack of evidence that it deters crime. This argument is logical, even in light of lack of evidence to the contrary."
Abstract This paper analyzes the five goals of corrections which are retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation and restoration. It discusses the history, philosophy, development and empirical validity of each goal. The paper then concludes with a statement of recommendation as to the preferred corrections theory stating why that is the theory thought superior to the other corrections theories. Finally, it discusses which should serve to guide corrections in the future.
Table of Contents:
Objective
Introduction
Retribution
Deterrence Rehabilitation
Incapacitation
Restoration
Summary
Recommendations For Future Corrections
From the Paper "Clearly research demonstrates both positive and negative results from use of the strategies of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation; restoration and certainly what is the best correctional strategy for one type of individual might not be the best whatsoever for use with another individual. The individual who is truly criminally insane will not respond to any of the attempts in correction strategies except that of incapacitation in a prison facility. Just as clearly no individual who is logical would consider Charles Manson or Theodore Bundy as eligible profiles for the restorative justice program or even for rehabilitation program or indeed of any other than imprisonment or death by execution There are however, very potentially productive, useful, and worthy individuals who are shuffled into the correction system due to their inability to hire a lawyer or lack of knowledge concerning their rights to having representation appointed to them that with education and knowledge or skills acquisition can be successfully rehabilitation or restored to society and within the community. Recently there has been documented an additional strategy in criminal justice corrections which is described as a 'transformational' process and is a cognitive-behavioral approach in treatment."
Abstract This paper argues that safeguards built into the legal system have allowed the courtrooms of today to be places where true justice is meted out in a fair manner. The author points out that the introduction of new DNA technologies can help determine both innocence and guilt. The paper relates that the deterrent effect of the death penalty, cannot be denied because the fear of punishment and death is similar in all human beings even criminals; exceptions to this principle are few. The author stresses that, although the death penalty is not pleasant to think about, it is a necessary evil in our society to punish, deter and eliminate those persons who would unjustly take the lives of other people.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Does Bias Exist?
The Death Penalty as a Deterrent DNA and the Death Penalty
Conclusion
From the Paper "Finally, there are those who claim that death row is full of innocent men and recent releases due to new DNA evidence is proof of this assertion. "..." This argument actually bolsters the pro-death penalty argument, as if DNA can prove an inmate innocent of crime, it can prove guilt as well; therefore, society can be even more certain that those on death row are rightfully there. In addition, since 1976, "not one person in the United States has been later proven innocent as a result of DNA evidence." I would argue it is the rare occasion that DNA actually exonerates a death row inmate..."
Abstract This paper explains that the threat of execution versus life imprisonment, is the essence of the debate over the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent. The paper then shows the constraints involved in evaluating whether capital punishment acts as a deterrent. The paper relates that the overriding concern today is perhaps the finality of the punishment, since a growing number of condemned capital offense prisoners have subsequently been exonerated through new investigative techniques, particularly DNA evidence.
From the Paper "There are some profound constraints involved in the capital punishment as a deterrent analysis, though. In this regard, Steiker (2005) emphasizes that, "We have not been and never will be able to verify the deterrent effect of executions by conducting a 'controlled' scientific experiment, which would randomly assign either execution or some term of years to similarly situated defendants in similarly situated jurisdictions" (p. 751). Such constraints are compounded by a number of other factors as well. Indeed, even the perception of the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent largely depends on an individual's views concerning the death penalty, with those in favor of capital punishment viewing studies of deterrence differently than those who are opposed to the practice (Burke, 2006)."
