DOCSLIB.ORG

Deterrence Theory———233

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Deterrence Theory———233 D-Bosworth.qxd 11/15/2004 7:30 PM Page 233 Deterrence Theory———233 American Friends Service Committee. (1971). Struggle for justice. New York: Hill and Wang. DETERRENCE THEORY Ashworth, A. (1992). Sentencing reform structures. In Proponents of deterrence believe that people choose M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 16). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. to obey or violate the law after calculating the Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing opti- gains and consequences of their actions. Overall, mistic and pessimistic accounts. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime however, it is difficult to prove the effectiveness of and justice: A review of research (Vol. 25). Chicago: deterrence since only those offenders not deterred University of Chicago Press. come to the notice of law enforcement. Thus, we Engen, R., Gainey, R., Crutchfield, R., & Weis, J. (2003). may never know why others do not offend. Discretion and disparity under sentencing guidelines: The role of departures and structured sentencing alternatives. Criminology, 41, 99–130. GENERAL AND Goodstein, L., & Hepburn, J. (1985). Determinate sentencing and imprisonment: A failure of reform. Cincinnati, OH: SPECIFIC DETERRENCE Anderson. There are two basic types of deterrence—general Griset, P. (1991). Determinate sentencing: The promise and the reality of retributive justice. Albany: State University and specific. General deterrence is designed to of New York Press. prevent crime in the general population. Thus, the Harris, M. K. (1991). Moving into the new millennium: state’s punishment of offenders serves as an Toward a feminist vision of justice. In H. Pepinsky & example for others in the general population who R. Quinney (Eds.), Criminology as peacemaking have not yet participated in criminal events. It is (pp. 83–97). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. meant to make them aware of the horrors of official Morris, R. (1995). Penal abolition, the practical choice: A practical manual on penal abolition. Toronto: Canadian sanctions in order to put them off committing Scholars’ Press. crimes. Examples include the application of the Shane-DuBow, S., Brown, A., & Olsen, E. (1985). Sentencing death penalty and the use of corporal punishment. reform in the United States: History, content, and effect. Since general deterrence is designed to deter Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. those who witness the infliction of pains upon the Sullivan, D., & Tifft, L. (2001). Restorative justice: Healing convicted from committing crimes themselves, the foundations of our everyday lives. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree. corporal punishment was traditionally, and in some Taylor, I. (1999). Crime in context: A critical criminology of places is still, carried out in public so that others market societies. Boulder, CO: Westview. can witness the pain. Although outlawed in the Thomson, D. (1987). Probation in the USA. In J. Harding United States, public punishment is still used in (Ed.), Probation and the community. London: Tavistock. other countries. For instance, in August 2001, Tonry, M. ([1988]1996). Sentencing matters. New York: Nigeria introduced shari’a, or Islamic law, that Oxford University Press. Tonry, M. (1999). Reconsidering indeterminate and structured allows the application of corporal punishment. sentencing. In Sentencing & corrections issues for the That same month, Iran sentenced 20 people to be 21st century (Papers from the Executive Sessions on caned for consuming alcohol. In November 2001, Sentencing and Corrections, No. 2). Washington, DC: Saudi Arabia lashed 55 youths for harassing U.S. Department of Justice. women. Likewise, Human Rights Watch reports Tonry, M., & Hatlestad, K. (Eds.). (1997). Sentencing reform that under Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, those in overcrowded times: A comparative perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. who violated military orders or committed other Wright, R. (2002). Counting the cost of sentencing in North crimes could be punished by amputation of arms, Carolina, 1980–2000. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and legs, and ears. Finally, in England and the United justice: A review of research (Vol. 29). Chicago: University States, hangings were once carried out in public. of Chicago. The public and family members were allowed to attend so that they could see what happened to Legal Cases those who broke the law. Today, some advocates In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). call for televised executions as a way of deterring Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966). murder. D-Bosworth.qxd 11/15/2004 7:30 PM Page 234 234———Deterrence Theory Specific deterrence is designed—by the nature of due to the alienation and exclusion of some the proscribed sanctions—to deter only the individ- members of society. To avoid this, people agree to ual offender from committing that crime in the give up their own egocentricity as long as everyone future. Proponents of specific deterrence also does the same thing approximately. This is what believe that punishing offenders severely will make Hobbes termed the social contract. To avoid war, them unwilling to reoffend in the future. A drunk conflict, and crime, people enter into a social con- driver, for example, would be deterred from drink- tract with the government so that it will protect ing and driving because of the unpleasant experi- them from human predicaments. The role of the ence he or she suffered from being arrested, or state is to enforce the social contract. Hobbes having his or her license taken away or his or her car indicated that if one agrees to the social contract, impounded. The state must apply enough pain to that individual authorizes the sovereign to use force offset the amount of pleasure derived from drinking. to uphold the social contract. But crimes may still occur even if after governments perform their duties. In this case, Hobbes argued that the punish- EARLY CLASSICAL ment for crime must be greater than the benefit that PHILOSOPHERS OF DETERRENCE THEORY comes from committing the crime. Deterrence is The deterrence theory of punishment can be traced the reason individuals are punished for violating the to the early works of classical philosophers such social contract, and it serves to maintain the agree- as Thomas Hobbes (1588–1678), Cesare Beccaria ment between the state and the people in the form (1738–1794), and Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). of a workable social contract. Together, these theorists protested against the legal policies that had dominated European thought for Cesare Beccaria more than a thousand years, and against the spiritu- Building on the ideals of the social contract alistic explanations of crime on which they were philosophers, in 1764, Cesare Bonesana, Marchese founded. In addition, these social contract thinkers Beccaria, published his treatise, Dei Delitti e delle provided the foundation for modern deterrence Pene (On Crimes and Punishments), in which he theory in criminology. challenged the rights of the state to punish crimes. He followed Hobbes and other 18th-century Thomas Hobbes Enlightenment writers that laws should be judged In Leviathan, published in 1651, Hobbes by their propensity to afford the “greatest happiness described men as neither good nor bad. Unlike shared by the greatest number” (Beccaria, 1963, religious philosopher Thomas Aquinas, who insisted p. 8). Since people are rationally self-interested, that people naturally do good rather than evil, they will not commit crimes if the costs of commit- Hobbes assumed that men are creatures of their ting crimes prevail over the benefits of engaging own volition who want certain things and who fight in undesirable acts. If the sole purpose of punish- when their desires are in conflict. In the Hobbesian ment is to prevent crime in society, Beccaria (1963) view, people generally pursue their self-interests, argued, “punishments are unjust when their severity such as material gain, personal safety, and social exceeds what is necessary to achieve deterrence” reputation, and make enemies without caring if they (p. 14). Excessive severity will not reduce crime, harm others in the process. Since people are deter- in other words, it will only increase crime. In mined to achieve their self-interests, the result Beccaria’s view, swift and certain punishment are is often conflict and resistance without a fitting the best means of preventing and controlling crime; government to maintain safety. punishment for any other reason is capricious, Hobbes also pointed out that humans are rational superfluous, and repressive. enough to realize that the self-interested nature of Beccaria and the classical theorists believed that people would lead to crime and inevitable conflict humans are rational beings with free will to govern D-Bosworth.qxd 11/15/2004 7:30 PM Page 235 Deterrence Theory———235 their own decisions. Indeed, he emphasized that barbarities found in the criminal codes of his time laws should be published so that people may know in England. Noting that all punishment is mischief, what they represent—their intent, as well as their he maintained, also, that all penalties, per se, are purpose. Basing the legitimacy of criminal sanc- evil unless punishment is used to avert greater evil, tions on the social contract, Beccaria (1963) called or to control the action of offenders. In short, the laws “the conditions under which men, naturally object of the law is to widen the happiness of the independent, united themselves in society” (p. 11). people by increasing the pleasure and lessening He was against torture and secret accusations, and the pain of the community. Punishment, in excess demanded they be abolished. Furthermore, he of what is essential to deter people from violating rejected the use of capital punishment and sug- the law, is unjustified. gested that it be replaced by imprisonment. According to Beccaria, jails should be more SEVERITY, CERTAINTY, humane and the law should not distinguish between AND CELERITY OF PUNISHMENT the rich and the poor. Judges should determine guilt and the application of the law, rather than the spirit The theory of deterrence that has developed from of the law.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comparative Jurisprudence(I) 1891
    University of Pennsylvania Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 1995 Comparative Jurisprudence (I): What Was it Like to Try a Rat? William B. Ewald University of Pennsylvania Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Civil Law Commons, Civil Procedure Commons, Commercial Law Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, Legal Commons, Legal Education Commons, Legal History, Theory and Process Commons, Legal Theory Commons, Natural Law Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation Ewald, William B., "Comparative Jurisprudence (I): What Was it Like to Try a Rat?" (1995). Faculty Scholarship. Paper 1405. http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1405 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMPARATIVE JURISPRUDENCE (I): WHAT WAS IT LIKE TO TRY A RAT? WILLIAM EWALDt PART ONE I. THE RATS OF AUTUN .......................... 1898 PART TWO H. COMPARATIVE JURISPRUDENCE .................... 1948 A. Remarks on Strategy .......................... 1943 B. The Boundaries of ComparativeJurisprudence ....... 1954 1. Criteria for a New Subject ................ 1955 2. Distinguishing Comparative Jurisprudence from the Philosophy of Law ................ 1956 III. THE PRESENT STATE OF COMPARATIVE LAW ............ 1961 A. The Malaise ............................... 1961 B. The TraditionalApproaches to Comparative Law ..... 1965 1. Casebooks and Pedagogy .................. 1965 2. Works of Scholarship ..................... 1975 3. The Problem of Public Law ............... 1987 t Assistant Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Pennsylvania.
    [Show full text]
  • Deterring and Dissuading Nuclear Terrorism
    Journal of Strategic Security Volume 5 Number 1 Volume 5, No. 1: Spring 2012 Article 6 Deterring and Dissuading Nuclear Terrorism John J. Klein ANSER, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss Part of the Defense and Security Studies Commons, National Security Law Commons, and the Portfolio and Security Analysis Commons pp. 15-30 Recommended Citation Klein, John J.. "Deterring and Dissuading Nuclear Terrorism." Journal of Strategic Security 5, no. 1 (2012) : 15-30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.5.1.2 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol5/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Strategic Security by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Deterring and Dissuading Nuclear Terrorism Abstract While nuclear deterrence theory may be well-suited to dealing with nuclear-armed states, its suitability for deterring nuclear terrorism has frequently been questioned since 9/11. While terrorist organizations do not necessarily act uniformly or according to the same underlying beliefs, many of the most aggressive organizations are motivated by an ideology that embraces martyrdom and an apocalyptic vision.1 This ideology may be based on religion or a desire to overthrow a government. Consequently, terrorists motivated by ideology who intend to use a stolen or improvised nuclear device against the United States or its interests may not care about the resulting military repercussions following a nuclear attack.
    [Show full text]
  • Deterrence Theory in the Cyber-Century Lessons from a State-Of-The-Art Literature Review
    Working Paper Research Division EU/Europe Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs Annegret Bendiek, Tobias Metzger Deterrence theory in the cyber-century Lessons from a state-of-the-art literature review SWP Working Papers are online publications of SWP’s research divisions which have not been formally reviewed by the Institute. Ludwigkirchplatz 3−4 10719 Berlin Phone +49 30 880 07-0 Fax +49 30 880 07-100 www.swp-berlin.org Working Paper RD EU/Europe, 2015/ 02, May 2015 [email protected] SWP Berlin Table of Contents List of Figures 1 List of Abbreviations 2 Introduction 3 In theory – Deterrence theory and cyberspace 4 Deterrence-by-retaliation and deterrence-by-denial 6 In practice – Suitability of cyber: lessons and implications 7 Key challenges: Credibility and capability to display and use force 7 How to deter? Deterrence-by-denial and deterrence-by- retaliation 9 Determining the type of defence 9 Adding offence to the equation 10 When and whom to deter? Immediate vs. general deterrence and the challenge of attribution 10 What to deter? Narrow vs. broad deterrence 12 For whom? Central vs. extended deterrence 13 Conclusion and outlook 14 Annex 16 Glossary 16 List of References 17 List of Figures Figure 1: Limits to retaliation in cyberspace .................. 9 Figure 2: A possible model of escalation ....................... 11 Figure 3: EEAS figure on a possible inter-ministry division of labour ................................................................. 15 Figure 4: Risk assessment
    [Show full text]
  • Restorative Versus Retributive Justice Kathleen Daly Reviews the Discourse That Has Framed Restorative Justice As the Antidote to Punishment
    Restorative versus Retributive Justice Kathleen Daly reviews the discourse that has framed restorative justice as the antidote to punishment. n 'Restorative justice: the real story' (Punishment and Advocates seem to assume that an ideal justice system should Society 2002), Kathleen Daly draws on her experience of be of one type only, that it should be pure and not contaminated / restorative justice conferencing and an extensive survey of by or mixed with others. [Even when calling for the need to academic literature to refute four myths that she says have "blend restorative, reparative, and transformative justice... with grown up around restorative justice. These are that: (1) the prosecution of paradigmatic violations of human rights", restorative justice is the opposite of retributive justice; (2) Drambl (2000:296) is unable to avoid using the term 'retributive' restorative justice uses indigenous justice practices and was to refer to responses that should be reserved for the few.] the dominant form ofpre-modern justice; (3) restorative justice Before demonstrating the problems with this position, I give a is a 'care' (or feminine) response to crime in comparison to a sympathetic reading of what I think advocates are trying to say. justice' (or masculine) response; and (4) restorative justice Mead's (1917-18) 'The Psychology of Punitive Justice' can be expected to produce major changes in people. She says contrasts two methods of responding to crime. One he termed that "simple oppositional dualisms are inadequate in depicting"the attitude of hostility toward the lawbreaker" (p. 227), which criminal justice, even in an ideal justice system", and argues "brings with it the attitudes of retribution, repression, and for a 'real story' which would serve the political future of exclusion" (pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Beccaria, Cesare: Classical School
    Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory Beccaria, Cesare: Classical School Contributors: Andrew N. Carpenter Editors: Francis T. Cullen & Pamela Wilcox Book Title: Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory Chapter Title: "Beccaria, Cesare: Classical School" Pub. Date: 2010 Access Date: September 12, 2014 Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc. City: Thousand Oaks Print ISBN: 9781412959186 Online ISBN: 9781412959193 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959193.n19 Print pages: 74-78 ©2010 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This PDF has been generated from SAGE knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online version will vary from the pagination of the print book. SAGE ©2010 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. SAGE knowledge http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959193.n19 Cesare Beccaria was an Italian Enlightenment philosopher, politician, and economist whose celebrated book On Crimes and Punishments condemned the use of torture, argued for the abolition of capital punishment, and advocated many reforms for the rational and fair administration of law. Beccaria's ideas about legal and penal reforms, which influenced intellectuals and statesmen throughout Europe and in North America, inspired many significant reforms in the last decades of the 18th century and the first decades of the 19th century. Beccaria influenced the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham who, along with Beccaria, produced the foundational ideas of the Classical School of Criminology. Many of the reforms that Beccaria advocated remain aspirations for contemporary systems of legal justice, including punishment proportionate to the severity of the crime and [p. 74 ↓ ] the development of a system of published laws and legal procedures applied equally to all without interference by the particular interests of rulers, judges, or clerics and without providing favorable treatment to individuals of higher social, political, or economic status.
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2015 Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice Allegra M. McLeod Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1490 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2625217 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156-1239 (2015) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice Allegra M. McLeod EVIEW R ABSTRACT This Article introduces to legal scholarship the first sustained discussion of prison LA LAW LA LAW C abolition and what I will call a “prison abolitionist ethic.” Prisons and punitive policing U produce tremendous brutality, violence, racial stratification, ideological rigidity, despair, and waste. Meanwhile, incarceration and prison-backed policing neither redress nor repair the very sorts of harms they are supposed to address—interpersonal violence, addiction, mental illness, and sexual abuse, among others. Yet despite persistent and increasing recognition of the deep problems that attend U.S. incarceration and prison- backed policing, criminal law scholarship has largely failed to consider how the goals of criminal law—principally deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retributive justice—might be pursued by means entirely apart from criminal law enforcement. Abandoning prison-backed punishment and punitive policing remains generally unfathomable. This Article argues that the general reluctance to engage seriously an abolitionist framework represents a failure of moral, legal, and political imagination.
    [Show full text]
  • Works on Giambattista Vico in English from 1884 Through 2009
    Works on Giambattista Vico in English from 1884 through 2009 COMPILED BY MOLLY BLA C K VERENE TABLE OF CON T EN T S PART I. Books A. Monographs . .84 B. Collected Volumes . 98 C. Dissertations and Theses . 111 D. Journals......................................116 PART II. Essays A. Articles, Chapters, et cetera . 120 B. Entries in Reference Works . 177 C. Reviews and Abstracts of Works in Other Languages ..180 PART III. Translations A. English Translations ............................186 B. Reviews of Translations in Other Languages.........192 PART IV. Citations...................................195 APPENDIX. Bibliographies . .302 83 84 NEW VICO STUDIE S 27 (2009) PART I. BOOKS A. Monographs Adams, Henry Packwood. The Life and Writings of Giambattista Vico. London: Allen and Unwin, 1935; reprinted New York: Russell and Russell, 1970. REV I EWS : Gianturco, Elio. Italica 13 (1936): 132. Jessop, T. E. Philosophy 11 (1936): 216–18. Albano, Maeve Edith. Vico and Providence. Emory Vico Studies no. 1. Series ed. D. P. Verene. New York: Peter Lang, 1986. REV I EWS : Daniel, Stephen H. The Eighteenth Century: A Current Bibliography, n.s. 12 (1986): 148–49. Munzel, G. F. New Vico Studies 5 (1987): 173–75. Simon, L. Canadian Philosophical Reviews 8 (1988): 335–37. Avis, Paul. The Foundations of Modern Historical Thought: From Machiavelli to Vico. Beckenham (London): Croom Helm, 1986. REV I EWS : Goldie, M. History 72 (1987): 84–85. Haddock, Bruce A. New Vico Studies 5 (1987): 185–86. Bedani, Gino L. C. Vico Revisited: Orthodoxy, Naturalism and Science in the ‘Scienza nuova.’ Oxford: Berg, 1989. REV I EWS : Costa, Gustavo. New Vico Studies 8 (1990): 90–92.
    [Show full text]
  • Deterrence Daniel S
    Deterrence Daniel S. Nagin* The criminal justice system in a democratic society serves many vital social purposes. Among the most important is deterring crime. Going back to the pioneering work of the Enlightenment philosopher Cesare Beccaria, deterrence theorists have distinguished between the certainty and severity of punishment. Conventional wisdom, backed by considerable research evidence, is that the certainty of punishment, not its severity, is the more effective deterrent. Recent reviews of that evidence has led me to a refinement of the certainty principle—it is the certainty of apprehension not the severity of the ensuing consequences that is the more effective deterrent. This conclusion has several important implications for policy. First, it calls into question the effectiveness of over four decades of U.S. crime-control policy predicated on the premise that lengthy prison sentences are an effective deterrent to crime. Second, according to the revised certainty principle, crime-prevention policy should instead focus on bolstering the certainty of apprehension. Such policies mostly involve increasing police numbers or better use of the police by their strategic deployment in ways that heighten their presence in high- crime areas and/or reduce criminal opportunities at such places. INTRODUCTION The criminal justice system in a democratic society serves many vital social purposes. Among the most important is preventing crime. The system’s activities may prevent crime by three mechanisms. One is incapacitation.1 Convicted offenders are often punished with imprisonment. Incapacitation refers to the crimes averted by their physical isolation during the period of their incarceration. Two other mechanisms involve possible behavioral responses.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Criminology
    PART 1 © Nevarpp/iStockphoto/Getty Images Introduction to Criminology CHAPTER 1 Crime and Criminology. 3 CHAPTER 2 The Incidence of Crime . 35 1 © Tithi Luadthong/Shutterstock CHAPTER 1 Crime and Criminology Crime and the fear of crime have permeated the fabric of American life. —Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court1 Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd. —Bertrand Russell2 OBJECTIVES • Define criminology, and understand how this field of study relates to other social science disciplines. Pg. 4 • Understand the meaning of scientific theory and its relationship to research and policy. Pg. 8 • Recognize how the media shape public perceptions of crime. Pg. 19 • Know the criteria for establishing causation, and identify the attributes of good research. Pg. 13 • Understand the politics of criminology and the importance of social context. Pg. 18 • Define criminal law, and understand the conflict and consensus perspectives on the law. Pg. 5 • Describe the various schools of criminological theory and the explanations that they provide. Pg. 9 of the public’s concern about the safety of their com- Introduction munities, crime is a perennial political issue that can- Crime is a social phenomenon that commands the didates for political office are compelled to address. attention and energy of the American public. When Dealing with crime commands a substantial por- crime statistics are announced or a particular crime tion of the country’s tax dollars. Criminal justice sys- goes viral, the public demands that “something be tem operations (police, courts, prisons) cost American done.” American citizens are concerned about their taxpayers over $270 billion annually.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Purpose in Deterrence-Based Correctional Programs Cecelia Klingele
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 2015 What Are We Hoping For? Defining Purpose in Deterrence-Based Correctional Programs Cecelia Klingele Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Klingele, Cecelia, "What Are We Hoping For? Defining Purpose in Deterrence-Based Correctional Programs" (2015). Minnesota Law Review. 265. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/265 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Essay What Are We Hoping For? Defining Purpose in Deterrence-Based Correctional Programs Cecelia Klingele† INTRODUCTION Probation has long offered individuals convicted of crime a way to avoid the deleterious effects of incarceration and remain in the community, bound by conditions designed to help them develop the routines and skills essential to a law-abiding life. The ultimate goal of probation is to promote desistance, the process by which a person formerly engaged in criminal offend- ing moves to a place of “long-term abstinence from crime.”1 This process of “making good” is often difficult, requiring a proba- tioner to abandon the habits and influences that have enabled criminal behavior and to develop law-abiding norms and prosocial relationships.2 Although probation historically involved close mentoring and monitoring by probation officers,3 growing caseloads and resource constraints often result in lax supervision and uneven enforcement of the conditions of supervision.4 As a result, in † Assistant Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • What About Peacekeepers? Deterring Attacks Against Humanitarian Workers
    What about Peacekeepers? Deterring Attacks against Humanitarian Workers Marcellina Priadi Uppsala University Department of Peace & Conflict Research Master Thesis Summer 2017 Word Count: 18,208 Abstract This thesis seeks to understand the phenomenon of attacks against humanitarian workers by asking: why are humanitarian workers attacked in some contexts, but not in others? By exploring the effects of deterrence as a security strategy, this thesis investigates the direct link between causes of attacks against humanitarian workers and humanitarian security. It argues that when humanitarian organisations involve peacekeepers directly in their humanitarian relief activities, this is likely to lead to a decrease in attacks. This is because peacekeepers are armed and able to function as a capable and credible counterthreat against belligerents for humanitarian organisations. A game- like theoretic model of the decision-making sequence leading up to attacks in the humanitarian space is applied to illustrate this. The theoretical argument is tested quantitatively on freshly collated data on peacekeeping activities using a negative binomial count model. Unexpectedly however, the results reveal a contradictory relationship to the hypothesis. Directly involving peacekeepers in humanitarian relief activities is associated with an increase in attacks against humanitarian workers. The surprising results are found to be significant and robust overall. 2 Acknowledgements I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone that has assisted and supported me throughout this research process. To my classmates, for the camaraderie we have shared during this time and the immeasurable ways they have helped me to grow. To my teachers, who have challenged my thoughts and built the foundation for this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Deterrence? What About Dissuasion? by MAJ Lim Guang He
    Deterrence? What About Dissuasion? By MAJ Lim Guang He February 2020 Deterrence? What About Dissuasion? DETERRENCE? WHAT ABOUT DISSUASION? By MAJ Lim Guang He ABSTRACT In this essay, the author is not attempting to redefine deterrence but to encourage readers to consider the notion of acting before deterrence—through dissuasion. So what constitutes dissuasion and why consider it? The author feels that similar to deterrence, there is no direct answer as each country has its own set of unique security challenges and capabilities. Furthermore, the issue is made more complex as nuclear powers and non-nuclear powers employ different strategies. So, in this essay, the author attempts to: (1) elucidate the limitations of deterrence theory, (2) establish a coherent trend of elements that help define the concept of dissuasion, and (3) adapt them to the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF)’s defence policy. He first begins by analysing the limitations of classical (rational) deterrence theory and its modern derivatives in the security landscape of tomorrow. He then explores the interpretations of dissuasion today and how they can be applied. Finally, the author develops what dissuasion as a strategic concept means for Singapore and how the SAF can meld dissuasion into deterrence thinking. Keywords: Deterrence; Dissuasion; Asymmetric; Hybrid Warfare; Adversaries INTRODUCTION deterrence itself: is the SAF too entrenched in its Deterrence—a word that appears in almost every deterrence philosophy to think outside of deterrence? Is contemporary defence doctrine—including Singapore’s deterrence a sacred cow that contemporary defence ‘twin pillars of deterrence and diplomacy.’1 However, thinking must always link back to? Instead of arguing the original premise of nuclear capability and/or military the evolution of deterrence further and further away superiority as the backbone of deterrence has steadily from its conceptual roots, why not argue for a eroded into the 21st Century.
    [Show full text]