solved Response to Joshua Gilliam Introduction to Evidence-Based Corrections  Overall,

Response to Joshua Gilliam
Introduction to Evidence-Based Corrections  
Overall, prison has been seen as a form of punishment to the American criminal justice system. In some instances, prison is only utilized for serious and dangerous offenders. On the other hand, there are repeat offenders who have exhausted all other options that prison only remains. As mentioned, incarceration can be used in a number of ways. One way that has played a significant role in the use of policing is the theory of deterrence. In some capacity, prison has been used as a deterrent and currently is still in use. The following paragraphs will examine the theory of deterrence. In addition, the theory of deterrence will be assessed in its application in the realm of corrections. Also, the long-term effects of deterrence can have on correctional practice will be discussed. Additionally, deterrence and correctional practice will be analyzed through a Christian worldview as it relates to the above will be discussed. Lastly, the conclusion will recap all highlights of this discussion and what recommendations should be made going forward.
Deterrence Theory
The theory of deterrence is meant to teach offenders who violate the law to desist from crime through means of punishment. In a theoretical context, deterrence places a heavy emphasis on rational choice theory (Cullen & Johnson, 2017). In other words, the authors suggest that under deterrence, people consider a cost benefit analysis when committing a criminal offense. This term is otherwise known as “hedonistic calculus.” Cullen and Johnson suggest that two things follow: either people will calculate that the risk is not worth the arrest or that they already understand the consequences that come with the territory. The authors make note that there are two types of deterrence which is specific and general deterrence. They state that specific deterrence is to deter an individual from committing future crime through criminal sanctions. In addition, general deterrence is the philosophy that other people will resist the opportunity for criminal opportunity when observing another individual be sanctioned for similar crime according to them. For example, if a third drug offense landed a person a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years, then others would either consider finding other means of finances or be more cautious of their activity at best.
Application of Deterrence within Corrections  
           The practice of deterrence has played a major role in corrections. It is a utilitarian theory which seeks to prevent as much crime as possible and maintain social order within facilities (Cullen & Johnson, 2017). With that being said, deterrence has brought along many of the get-tough on crime policies and procedures that have led to increased surveillance and security within prisons. In addition, even the programs and their requirements became more stringent. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that this approach is successful in deterrence. For example, the Scared Straight program is an infamous example of how to scare offenders straight and turn away from crime (MacKenzie, 2000). The author notes that these types of programs are not effective at reducing the risk of recidivism. At the juvenile level, these programs such as shock and bootcamps did quite the opposite in that it actually increased the risk of recidivism rather than its focus on crime prevention (Cox et al., 2018). These authors suggest that children placed in these programs were being introduced to criminogenic environments.   
Long-Term Effects of Deterrence   
           One of the most glaring issues of deterrence that can have an effect is the lack of discretion. On one hand, this can be a positive aspect as there is no discriminatory or biased practices. On the other hand, majority of criminal sanctions are fixed or determinate under the theoretical frameworks of deterrence. In other words, the circumstances surrounding offenses are not considered. Simply put, the punishment of a criminal act is based on severity, certainty and swiftness. Discretion is claimed by deterrence proponents to weaken the overall process of controlling crime (Cullen & Johnson, 2017). The authors make note that despite the nature of offense, it will carry a fixed sentence and punishment with no room for appeal. Ultimately, the long-term effect of that has been the wave of mass-incarceration. Cullen and Johnson represent this as the American correctional system has imprisoned approximately 1.5 billion offenders as it is the highest in the world. This is why the use of discretion has been exercised to provide housing relief for our overpopulated prison system.     
Christian Worldview
Throughout history, the use of detention is well documented. From a Christian perspective, there have been instances where prophets and criminals alike have awaited trial sitting behind bars. However, deterrence is meant to punish the crime and not the criminal. Scripture tells us about the true spirit of Christian love and that is “remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body” (King James Version, 1930/2016, Hebrews 13-3). The Christian perspective teach us to love the sinner and not the sin. Also, this verse teaches objectivity and compassion. For example, imagine oneself being placed behind bars and dealing with this type of suffering. One would ideally wanted to be treated fairly and not punished more so than they already have dealt with. If scholars and professionals were to adopt this Christian approach, then perhaps the system could take not necessarily a more relaxed approach but adopt a less strict theory of punishment.  
Conclusion
           In conclusion, the theory of deterrence does seem to be supported by traditional corrections practitioners. However, the application of deterrence and its long-term effects have otherwise shown ineffective results on controlling and deterring crime. According to evidence-based corrections, rehabilitation and cognitive behavioral programming have produced positive results in the reduction of recidivism (MacKenzie, 2017). From a Christian perspective, deterrence and correctional practice should only be used in instances for serious and dangerous offenders. Discretion should be utilized as not all cases are the same or one punishment is a universal fit for all. It is recommended that future studies continue to specifically demonstrate what works and what doesn’t in corrections.
References
Cox, S., Allen, J., Hanser, R., & Conrad, J. (2018). Juvenile Justice: a guide to theory, policy and practice. Sage.
Cullen, F. T., & Johnson C. L. (2017). Correctional Theory: context and consequences. Sage.
King James Bible. (2016). Christian Art Publishers. (Original work published 1930)
MacKenzie, L. D., (2000). Evidence-Based Corrections: identifying what works. Crime & Delinquency 46(4), p. 457-471. Sage.  
CJUS 703 Evidence Based Corrections.docx download