A broken deterrence theory

Jess Oaks
Posted 1/22/25

Deterrence is defined as the theory that criminal penalties do not just punish violators but also discourage other people from committing similar offenses.  

Is that really the case with …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

A broken deterrence theory

Posted

Deterrence is defined as the theory that criminal penalties do not just punish violators but also discourage other people from committing similar offenses. 

Is that really the case with the justice system today? Are the fines and fees really enough to prevent the crime from reoccurring?

Weekly, I collect the criminal dispositions from the courthouse and nearly every week, I see repeat offenders. Now, I am not talking about the basic speeding ticket…nope I am talking about the offenses where the “punishment” really doesn’t seem to fit the crime.  

Let’s take a look at a first-offense DUI as it is written.

DUI: Alcohol and controlled substance combo- first offense within ten years.

Now, let’s take a look at the “penalties” as written.

Jail: 90 days Suspended: 86 days Unsupervised probation: 1 year Fees and fines: $670.

Of course, these criminal dispositions don’t tell me the BAC or if this individual had any alcohol or drug-related offenses from ten years ago. But I am always taken aback by the small slap on the wrist offenders receive for breaking the law. 

Four days in jail…sure that’s a minor inconvenience for some folks…but not everyone. Why sentence to 90 days and suspend 86 days? How are four days in jail going to stop some of these offenders who have broken the same law, multiple times? Clearly, four days does nothing. That’s why we see so many re-offenders, not just in our community but in the United States as a whole. 

Here is another example of the failed deterrence theory…

Charges read as follows: Drive without interlock device: Licensed under article – SECOND offense…So let’s look up the Wyoming State Statute 31-7-404 ai (2) …shall be imprisoned for not less than 30 days nor more than six months…the person shall be fined not less than $200 and not more than $750.

The actual fine on the court papers, you ask: Jail 7 days…Fees and fines $520.

What is an interlock device you ask?

The Wyoming Department of Transportation explains it is a device that is installed on motor vehicles to PROHIBIT individuals from operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol…. but this is the individual above’s SECOND offense…I mean he/she had to earn how many offenses of driving while intoxicated before an interlock device was installed. You don’t get a fancy device like that from getting one DUI, I see it in the court dispositions. So how many infractions did this individual get before we got to the point where we decided to finally install a device? The point being, where is the deterrence? 

Sure…this is only a small fraction of information to support my thought process. 

This individual also received another infraction…driving while licenses is suspended…SECOND offense. Penalties: Jail 7 days, fees and fines $250.

Our deterrence theory is not working. 

Most of us avoid breaking the law because we are good people. We follow rules and instructions. I’m not saying anyone and everyone who has ever been involved in the justice system is a “bad” person. I know people change. But people change because they want to change. People change when they hit rock bottom. But rock bottom looks different for everyone. 

To the first-time offender, rock bottom may be having to make that phone call from the holding cell to home. For others, rock bottom will not be until that individual is still in an inpatient treatment facility…incarcerated. How about we actually try to deter criminal activity? 

If the maximum penalties were enforced, don’t you think criminal activity would drop?

Let’s look at a few current cases in our community. 

Example…. Atkinson. 

Atkinson assaulted and nearly killed his child’s mother all while being a wanted man. What was he wanted for? It wasn’t something like a parking ticket! Nope, he was wanted for placing his hands around the neck of another human being….and from the looks of the probable cause affidavit, this wasn’t a joyous moment…this was assault…this was domestic violence. Why on earth was he wandering around the community? 

Next? What about the Torrington man facing child pornography charges? 

He started collecting his nearly 7,000 files of child pornography while on PROBATION. 

Charge you ask? Stalking where he informed his victim he didn’t care if the cops knew he was contacting her…he would do what he wanted. 

Clearly, he did. 

This has to stop. Our community should be safe. Our children should be safe. If we don’t start holding those accountable for their actions and behaviors…well you know how it goes, one bad apple spoils the whole bunch.