The document provides instructions for discussion assignments in a course. Students must post one initial thread of at least 1000 words by Wednesday and then post two replies by Friday, each being at least 500 words. All posts must include at least two scholarly citations in APA format that were published within the last five years from textbooks, readings, or the Bible. No late work will be accepted.

1. CJUS 840
Discussion Assignment Instructions
The student will complete 5 Discussions in this course.
The student will post one thread of at least 1000 words by 11:59
a.m. (ET) on Wednesday. The student must then post 2 replies
of at least 500 words each by 11:59 a.m. (ET) on Friday.
For each thread, students must support their assertions with at
least 2 scholarly citations in current APA format.
Each reply must incorporate at least 2 scholarly citations in
current APA format.
Any sources cited must have been published within the last five
years. Acceptable sources include the textbooks (readings
provided), and the Bible.
NO LATE WORK!
First Student
Lauren Snipes
Module 1 Theory to Policy
COLLAPSE
Top of Form
Deterrence theory is defined as known knowledge of a
punishment for if an offender commits a crime which also

2. means that the punishment will fit the crime (Cullen,
2017). Specific deterrence involves the punishments for
specific crimes such as if a murder is committed then the
punishment could be life in prison or the death penalty
(Raphael, 2016). While general deterrence focuses on the entire
public fearing the punishment because they witnessed someone
else receiving the punishment (Cullen, 2017). General
deterrence has the priority of deterring the public based off the
consequences of others who have received a punishment for
committing a crime (Cullen, 2017).
When relating deterrence theory to correctional
policies, judges or parole officers do not have the liberties to
determine the punishments for the crimes of the offenders
(Cullen, 2017). An example of this would be two people who
committed a robbery, while one individual may have stolen
money to buy drugs, while the other robber stole money due to a
mental disturbance such as Alzheimer’s (Cullen, 2017). Based
off the deterrence theory, both offenders would receive the
same punishment regardless of the reasons (Cullen, 2017). In
addition, deterrence theory would not consider if the offender
had or had not excelled through rehabilitation programs and
does not believe in parole (Cullen, 2017). This shows the
public and potential offenders that state authorities are serious
about punishing those who commit crimes (Cullen, 2017).
Deterrence theory also promotes the idea that the crime
is to be punished and not the offender (Cullen, 2017). This
ensures that the focus of deterrence theory is prevent crimes and
is a utilitarian theory (Cullen, 2017). The utilitarian theory of
punishment is to focus on maximizing social order and
happiness throughout society which means that there will be
fewer crimes within the public (Lee, 2017).
Deterrence theory can be broken up into two different
assumptions (Lee, 2017). The first assumption is that those
who are potential offenders can make rational decisions and
understand that there are consequences for breaking the law and
they will be able to consider if they are willing to accept the

3. consequences for committing a crime or not, this is called the
capacity assumption (Lee, 2017). This assumption supports the
idea that those who are rational will want to avoid punishments
or unpleasant experiences (Lee, 2017). By being rational, the
individual has the mental capability to be able to understand the
consequences of committing a crime and comprehending that
when he or she is caught, if found guilty, they would receive the
punishment (Lee, 2017). This also means that if an individual
is not rational or able to comprehend the punishment and does
not understand that if he or she is found guilty of a crime then
they will have to suffer the consequences of the crime (Lee,
2017). If the individual is not able to rationally understand
this, the punishment will not be able to fully deter the crime
(Lee, 2017).
The second assumption is that the punishments that are
associated with committing crime is enough to convince
potential offenders to not commit crimes, this is called the
deterrence assumption (Lee, 2017). This assumption supports
the idea that methods of punishment are commonly known as
from originating on means of paying a price or a cost of
something from an individual (Lee, 2017). This could involve
paying personal money, taking personal time from their daily
lives, or capital punishment which would result in execution
(Lee, 2017). If the offender views the punishment as minor
then the punishment may not be enough to deter potential
offenders from committing crimes (Lee, 2017). This
assumption focuses on why punishments are given to those who
commit crimes, which focuses on making the punishment
unpleasant enough that the offender will believe that the cri me
is not worth the punishment (Lee, 2017).
The long-term effects of deterrence theory have the
purpose of reducing crimes, which will lead to fewer inmates,
and this would lead to fewer prisons that suffer from
overcrowding (Raphael, 2016). If the prisons are not
overcrowded then they would be able to incorporate more
programs for rehabilitation and classes for inmates who have

4. been incarcerated for long periods of time, so they are up to
date in technology, news, and understand how to survive in the
world outside of the prison (Raphael, 2016).
In my opinion, deterrence theory will always be around
because there will always be punishments for committing crimes
to scare the public or deter the public from committing crimes
(Cullen, 2017). However, judges and parole officers can
determine how long or severe the punishment can be to an
extent (Raphael, 2016). In addition, when taken into a court
hearing, the jury could find the individual as not guilty and if
the individual did commit the crime, then this means that the
individual committed a crime and did not receive any form of
punishment for the crime (Raphael, 2016). This could make
potentials ignore the punishments that are for certain crimes
because of the possibility that they would be found not guilty,
or they would not have to serve a long imprisonment when
compared to others who will receive a longer imprisonment for
the same type of crime (Raphael, 2016). This also leads to the
argument that not two crimes are the same because of the
different factors of the crime (Raphael, 2016). This include but
is not limited to the offender, the crime scene, if the offender is
a repeat offender, the motive, and the type of crime (Raphael,
2016).
According to scripture it teaches that the prudent will
understand that there is danger and consequences to committing
crimes and they will seek safety and will not pursue the
dangerous activities (New King James Bible, 1895, Proverbs
27:12). Proverbs 27:12 also teaches that those who continue the
path towards the danger will have to pay a penalty (New King
James Bible, 1895, Proverbs 27:12). This supports deterrence
theory because this teaches that the punishment for the
dangerous acts, such as crimes, will bring punishment but if the
people turn away from crime or from the danger then they will
not have to face the penalty (New King James Bible, 1895,
Proverbs 27:12). The fear of a penalty or the desire of not
suffering from a penalty may deter an individual from

5. venturing off onto the wrong path (New King James Bible,
1895, Proverbs 27:12).
Bottom of Form
CJUS 703
Discussion Grading Rubric
Criteria
Levels of Achievement
Content
70%
Advanced
92–100%
Proficient
84-91%
Developing
1–83%
Not
Present
Points Earned
Thread:
Key Components
Major Point Support
9 to 10 points
All key components of the Discussion Forum prompt are
answered in the thread.
Major points are supported by all of the following:
Reading & Study materials;
Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal);
Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing
implications, and comparing/contrasting concepts);
At least 2 scholarly citations, in current APA format.
7 to 8 points
Most key components of the Discussion Forum prompt are

6. answered in the thread.
Major points are supported by most of the following:
· Reading & Study materials;
· Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal);
· Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing
implications, and comparing/contrasting concepts);
· At least 2 scholarly citations, in current APA format.
1 to 6 points
Some key components of the Discussion Forum prompt are
answered in the thread.
Major points are supported by some of the following:
· Reading & Study materials;
· Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal);
· Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing
implications, and comparing/contrasting concepts);
· At least 2 scholarly citations, in current APA format.
0 points
No key components of the Discussion Forum prompt are
answered in the thread.
Major points are supported by none of the following:
· Reading & Study materials;
· Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal);
· Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing
implications, and comparing/contrasting concepts);
· At least 2 scholarly citations, in current APA format.
Replies:
Components
Major Point Support
9 to 10 points
Contribution made to discussion with each reply (2) expounding
on the thread.
Major points are supported by all of the following:
Reading & Study materials;
Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal);
Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing

7. implications, and comparing/contrasting concepts); and
At least 2 scholarly citations, in current APA format.
7 to 8 points
Marginal contribution made to discussion with each reply (2)
marginally expounding on the thread.
Major points are supported by most of the following:
Reading & Study materials;
Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal);
Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing
implications, and comparing/contrasting concepts); and
At least 2 scholarly citations, in current APA format.
1 to 6 points
Minimal contribution (2 minimal or only 1 reply) made to
discussion with each reply minimally expounding on the thread.
Major points are supported by some of the following:
Reading & Study materials;
Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal);
Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing
implications, and comparing/contrasting concepts); and
At least 2 scholarly citations, in current APA format.
0 points
No contribution made to discussion.
Major points are supported by none of the following:
Reading & Study materials;
Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal);
Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing
implications, and comparing/contrasting concepts); and
At least 2 scholarly citations, in current APA format.
Structure 30%
Advanced
92–100%
Proficient
84–91%
Developing
1–83%

8. Not
Present
Points Earned
Grammar/Spelling
4 to 5 points
Proper spelling and grammar are used.
2 to 3 points
Between 1–2 spelling and grammar errors are present.
1 to 1 points
Between 3–4 spelling and grammar errors are present.
0 points
More than 4 spelling and grammar errors are present.
Word Count
4 to 5 points
Thread: at least 1000 words. Reply at least 500 words.
2 to 3 points
Thread: 400–599 words. Reply: 300–499 words.
1 to 1 points
Thread: 300–399 words. Reply: 200–299 words.
0 points
Thread: < 299 words. Reply: < 199 words.
Total
/30
Page 2 of 2
Second Student Post
6 hours ago
Samuel Whatley
Samuel's initial post
COLLAPSE
Top of Form
Out of the seven theories to choose from, the theory that will be

9. discussed on its influence of policy in corrections is
rehabilitation theory in the United States because it provides a
combination of earlier criminological theories like social
labeling, social disorganization, and rational choice to explain
behavior and to provide better alternatives for offenders (Cullen
& Jonson, 2017). They say most rehabilitative programs are
non-scientific and deliver little to no results in correctional
environments. Policy in corrections is driven by politics as seen
with the reformations during the Progressive era in the 1920s
initially creating rehabilitation changes to the prison system in
the United States up to the 1960s until public fear in the 1980s
promoted the “getting tough” narrative have demonstrated its
socio-political changes over time according to the authors.
Rehabilitation is like early intervention, but it intervenes at a
later point in an offender’s life rather than early
development (Dennis, n.d.). Cullen and Jonson state that
rehabilitative theory is becoming increasingly more popular for
correctional policy in recent times of all political parties. The
rehabilitative theory is particularly popular among
criminologists today as a means of effective treatment for
parole releases despite high caseloads on probation officers as
noted by the authors. They believe that incapacitation without
providing the opportunity for treatment of offenders that choose
to have the alternative is detrimental to long-term outcomes for
correcting individuals. They say that rehabilitative theory is
only effective for individuals seeking rehabilitative approaches
as offenders that “spent their whole lives developing into hard-
core criminals” who are unwilling to cooperate with officials
are likely to yield little to no results at effective intervention
with correcting behavior (p. 13). Additional considerations for
rehabilitative theory are crime control, punishment, and risk
factors according to the authors.
Many policy decisions lack scientific evidence to support the
decision-making process of evidence-based correction
programs (MacKenzie, 2000). She believes that providing
scientific information, evaluation, reevaluation of data,

10. interventions, and proven effective strategies at intervention
with correctional institutions are better treatment methods when
assessing the techniques of programs. Various state and local
budgets focus more on self-interests such as increasing funding
rather than emphasizing the interest of correcting offenders that
are willing to cooperate back into society as noted by the
author. She says that the Department of Justice (DoJ) allocated
an estimated over three billion annual funds for assisting state
and local justice community efforts to prevent crime. She cites
the Maryland Report’s review that was sent to Congress
consisting of more than 600 pages and suggesting that the
explanation of effective interventions are complex and not
simplified enough for Congress to understand the external
circumstances concerning crime prevention programs in the
community. Some groups that are listed include the police,
families in neighborhoods, educational institutions, criminal
justice programs, and labor markets that need evaluation and
reevaluation to be effective and evidence-based before
approving large budget funds by Congress for new programs
according to the author. MacKenzie states a similar belief with
Cullen and Jonson (2017) that empirically based policy such as
rehabilitative theory is better for the long-term as other theories
have fewer long-term positive effects for offenders. Deterrence
theory is defined as the belief that offenders should be
imprisoned and that it lowers reoffending in community
sanction, but Cullen and Jonson argue that there is a lack of
empirical evidence to support deterrence theory compared to
rehabilitative theory. Examples include the living conditions of
the neighborhood in question and the politics of the time
affecting correctional policy with the notion that corrections in
its early development mostly lacked empirical evidence and
were based solely on opinions such as John
Kennedy’s Reaffirming Rehabilitation according to the authors.
God commands that if there is a lack of wisdom on deciding
requires praying to Christ and asking for guidance as people are
destroyed for lack of knowledge:

11. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou
hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt
be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy
God, I will also forget thy children. (King James Bible,
1769/2021, Hosea 4:6)
James 1:5 and John 19:11 state that lack of wisdom requires
asking God for guidance and that any person who was put into a
government position was allowed by Christ as described by
Jesus and it relates to the course material by suggesting that
empirically based evidence for correctional policy is required to
determine adequate implementation and decision making for
senior leadership. In the context of wisdom regarding
correctional policy, approach methods should be evaluated on
its effectiveness of crime prevention strategies. Cullen and
Jonson (2017) believe that social context has historically
contributed toward experiences with crime control and public
perception because it has a direct impact on correctional policy.
Two of the most popular theories in the world of corrections are
rehabilitation and deterrence according to the authors. Luke
23:32–43 states that Jesus forgave a criminal while dying on the
cross and suggests that second chances are an opportunity that
should be given to offenders willing to change their life.
Cullen and Jonson (2017) list the other theories in corrections
besides the more popular deterrence and rehabilitation are
retribution or just deserts, incapacitation, restorative justice,
reentry, and early intervention. Retribution theory in
correctional policy is defined as a non-utilitarian approach that
puts sanctions and punishment on offenders as noted by the
authors. They define incapacitation theory as a utilitarian
approach toward offenders by incarceration using either
collective or selective by either locking all offenders of a
certain crime (collective) or only imprisoning a select number
of high-rate offenders (selective). Restorative justice theory is
defined as a balanced approach where the offender is forgiven
by the victim and accepted back into society after the offender
has paid restitution either by a combination of public apology

12. and community service according to the authors. They define
reentry theory is defined as mass imprisonment of offenders that
continue to return to prison after parole fails with the
assumption that the offender does not die in prison because of
lacking medical care or execution with two main components:
correctional and reintegration. Early intervention theory is
defined as preventing criminal activity in the future by using
programs for alleged juveniles that have been deemed as at-risk
youth to be taken from the biological parents as mentioned by
the authors.
Bottom of Form