ASSIGNMENT

Conduct research on deterrence research and crime opportunity theories (pros/cons of various hardline strategies). Prepare a power point presentation, summarizing your main findings (6 to 10 slides). Always cite sources in slides. Choose one of the topics below, and applying theoretical concepts covered in class.

Suggested debate topics:

  1. What does empirical research tell us about the following statement: Better security screening at airports and building a border wall is an effective mechanism to deter transnational crime (e.g., drugs, arms, humans) because it is hardening the target and increasing the risks for the offenders. It is cost-beneficial to invest in such policies because they deter offenders and lead to decrease in various types of transnational crimes (potentially also terrorism). People are rational offenders that calculate costs and benefits. Walls and airport security increase the risks of offending and harden the targets and therefore deter offenders from committing serious crimes. Provide various examples and refer to empirical studies on this topic. Discuss both sides of the argument.
  2. What are some unwanted outcomes of hardline policies on the evolution of drug trafficking, organized crime and gangs in Latin/Central America (e.g. Mexico, Colombia, El Salvador)? Discuss some hardline (zero tolerance) approaches implemented in the region to reduce/control drug trafficking and discuss the pros and cons of such tough on crime strategies. Explain your position and provide various Are such strategies effective? What are the weaknesses? Discuss both sides of the argument.
  3. Discuss the debate on Singapore’s new discretionary death penalty for drug couriers. Are tough on crime policies for drug traffickers – including severe punishments, long term prison sentences and even the death penalty effective and lead to reduction of drug trafficking/drug use. Discuss the effects of zero tolerance policies on drug use and drug trafficking. Provide various examples and refer to empirical studies. Discuss both sides of the argument.
  4. Elaborate on the focused deterrence approach (e.g., Kennedy, etc.) to gang violence, the strategies associated with it, and then present some results that this strategy has achieved in the past decade. Elaborate on the long-term success/feasibility of such strategies. Provide examples and refer to empirical studies. Provide various examples and refer to empirical studies. Discuss both sides of the argument (pros/cons of focused deterrence strategies).
  5. Does the arms trade do more to harm Human Rights than it does to defend National Security? Should US implement stricter gun control laws and how will (and if) that affect arms trafficking in the US (and/or other regions affected by the US trade)? What are the consequences of such policies? Provide various examples and refer to empirical studies. Discuss both sides of the argument.
  6. Are severe punishments (e.g. forms of torture, death penalty, life terms prison sentences, etc.) effective in obtaining useful information from terrorists and thus effective methods in the fight against terrorism. Can we reduce terrorism with hardline policies? What are some unwanted consequences of such approaches? Provide various examples and refer to empirical studies. Discuss both sides of the argument.
  7. Can we reduce serious violations of human rights (including genocide and crimes against humanity) by introducing hardline policies targeting heads of states? Will long term prison sentences for example reduce such future violations (and also the fact that we now have International Criminal Court to prosecute such crimes)? Provide various examples and refer to empirical studies. Discuss both sides of the argument.

Format

  1. Introduction: state your main argument (purpose statement).
    2. Background: Information necessary for the reader to understand what you are talking about.
    3. Lines of Argument: Present evidence in support of your argument (views/research in support of specific policies). List the evidence in order of importance—closely following the evidence that you find to exist.
  2. Refutation of Opposing Arguments: Consider and address opposing points view and some arguments in favor of other policies
  3. Discussion: Discuss the pro and against arguments related to specific policies/arguments and state your opinions.
  4. Conclusion: summarize your argument and its implications.