Running Head: Deterrence 1
During the course of study in references for the topic of deterrence I have found a vast amount of information. Most are articles written by different intellectual scholars in the criminal justice field all weighing in on what they believe the theory of “Deterrence” is and how it relates to the ability to deflect and or inhibit crime during war time, peace time and stately situations. In particular I found one article to be an astounding work done by a man named Stephen Quackenbush with an article titled General Deterrence and International Conflict: Testing Perfect Deterrence Theory (2006). Although this article deals with deterrence theory of international conflict it still involves the basic roots of deterrence. I would like to show that through Mr. Quackenbush’s work one can come very close to a “Perfect Theory of Deterrence “ by simply following the logic of the article.
When searching for the topic it was my goal to find the meaning of deterrence and or the application behind the theory. I wanted something with close ties to the relationship of the text we are using in the classroom. The text we are using Vold’s Theoretical Criminology, 6th ed (Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2010). I found in the article what I needed to relate different aspects of the text to the fundamentals behind what S. Quackebush (2006) had theorized about the levels behind deterrence. Not only does his research provide information on when and how to implement deterrence it can use simple math to determine the victor in every situation based on fundamentals of push and shove and force on force comparisons. In order to understand what deterrence was I wanted to find a source to provide a little more input than data from the 1800’s, as we have learned from Cesare Bonesana (1738-1794) statement concerning the implementation of keeping punishments proportional to the seriousness of the crime so that the cost always exceeds the reward (Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, pg. 14). This is all well and good to understand how to set its boundary of punishment to the crime but I needed a better understanding of how it worked and what other factors besides crime helped to determine severity and what types of deterrence we see in our world today. By looking into Quackenbush’s (2006) theory I can gain a better understanding of the levels of deterrence and the players in the game. By understanding it better myself and can readily adapt it better in my of life and have a better understanding of why and how it is used not only on the global level but on every street corner in America.
I order to locate the information I was searching for I followed the link provided in module one under the paper one resource provided by the course administrator. After following the link to the Excelsior Library’s resource search page I entered deterrence into the search box and began to look for articles that appealed to me over those that were easier for lack of a better term.
I did find an article prior to the one by Mr. Quackenbush (2006) but after careful review I found the course required the article to be from 2000 and up. My article was from the 1930’s so that got quickly recycled and I found the article mentioned above. When I have used the library resource in the past I...
References: Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, (2010) Vold 's Theoretical Criminology, 6th ed. Oxford University Press INC. New York, NY
Quackenbush, S. L. (2006) General Deterrence and International Conflict: Testing Perfect Deterrence Theory: Retrieved from: http://ehis.ebscohost.com.vlib.excelsior.edu/eds/detail?vid=4&hid=5&sid=aa2e740b-17f8-471a-843f-25982123af97%40sessionmgr111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=a9h&AN=48490499
Please join StudyMode to read the full document