Nuclear weapons remain salient to international security and stability given their continued existence within the strategic context of interstate relations, as well as their continued proliferation to state actors and potentially to non-state actors. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia have dramatically reduced their nuclear arsenals; however, the U.S and Russia today still have the large majority of the world's nuclear inventory, with thousands of nuclear weapons each and plans to maintain these large stockpiles. The central question of this study is-how does one reconcile the size and continued existence of the U.S. nuclear arsenal with U.S. nonproliferation policy and the U.S. commitment to pursue nuclear disarmament? This study's primary argument is that a nuclear-armed state can craft a weapons policy involving nuclear posture and force structure that balances the requirements of nuclear deterrence with nuclear nonproliferation objectives and eventual nuclear disarmament, and that the U.S. has imperfectly pursued such a balanced nuclear weapons policy since the end of the Cold War. This study's primary policy recommendations are that the U.S. nuclear arsenal can be reduced further and the U.S. can modify its nuclear posture to limit the role of nuclear weapons; such nuclear weapons policy changes that limit the mission and size of U.S. nuclear forces would demonstrate genuine commitment to nuclear nonproliferation and progress towards nuclear disarmament, while also maintaining a strategic deterrence capability for the foreseeable future. The pursuit of a balanced nuclear weapons policy will allow the U.S. to function as a genuine actor to positively influence the international nuclear environment towards a potentially nuclear-free world. Ultimately, global nuclear disarmament will likely require major developments within the international system, including the solving of the world's major security issues.

No description available.

This study uses a data set on adolescent offending, originally collected by a team of researchers at the Vera Institute of Justice in New York City, to critically examine the role of incarceration in criminal rehabilitation. A theoretical explanation of recidivism is constructed using four criminological theories: life course theory (Sampson & Laub 1993), differential association theory (Sutherland 1939), deterrence theory, and reintegrative shaming theory (Braithwaite 1989). This thesis uses these theories to investigate societal factors that may contribute to young offenders’ recidivism (versus successful rehabilitation). It is argued that youths who: (1) come from unconventional family environments, (2) possess deviant peer associations, (3) receive incarceration as punishment, and (4) undergo a stigmatizing shaming process are more likely to recidivate. The combination of these factors is also expected to be intensified during incarceration. An empirical examination of the effects of these factors on recidivism supports the main hypotheses advanced. Although conventional family environments and deviant peer associations are successful in determining first-time offending, results from this study suggest that these are inadequate as predictors of recidivism. Conversely, an extension of Braithwaite’s (1989) reintegrative shaming concept was found to be a strong predictor of subsequent offending. Medium sentence lengths in prison were associated with increased risk to recidivate. Most importantly, the results gathered some support for restorative justice approaches to criminal rehabilitation. Future considerations for recidivism research are explored. / Thesis (Master, Sociology) -- Queen's University, 2009-12-16 15:53:46.514

Abstract Employee violations of IS security policies is recognized as a key concern for organizations. Although interest in IS security has risen in recent years, little empirical research has examined this problem. To address this research gap, this dissertation identifies deliberate IS security policy violations as a phenomenon unique from other forms of computer abuse. To better understand this phenomenon, three guidelines for researching deliberate IS security violations are proposed. An analysis of previous behavioral IS security literature shows that no existing study meets more than one of these guidelines. Using these guidelines as a basis, this dissertation examines IS security policy violations using three theoretical models drawn from the following perspectives: neutralization theory, rational choice theory, and protection motivation theory. Three field studies involving surveys of 1,423 professional respondents belonging to 7 organizations across 47 countries were performed for empirical testing of the models. The findings of these studies identify several factors that strongly predict intentions to violate IS security policies. These results significantly increase our understanding of why employees choose to violate IS security policies and provide empirically-grounded implications for how practitioners can improve employee IS security policy compliance.

American policy makers primarily embrace a deterrent-based policing agenda to curb illicit drug trafficking and use that relies on the principles of the economic price elasticity of demand (Boynum & Reuter, 2005). This counter-drug platform includes three fundamental programs: arresting offenders, seizing illicit drugs, and eradicating horticultural sources of illicit drugs (U.S. DEA, 2015). One of the main goals of these programs is to deter illegal trafficking and use by increasing the price of illicit substances so they are no longer attractive to consumers. The United States has weathered various drug use epidemics during its history, and currently it is facing a heroin and opioid epidemic (Dean, 2017). The present multi-dimensional study is guided by three broad goals: to assess the dynamics of illicit drug pricing and the economic price elasticity of demand perspective; to evaluate whether drug trafficking organizations respond to theoretically deterrence based counter-drug law enforcement efforts; and to assess why law enforcement activities are (or are not) effective in controlling illegal drug markets. To accomplish these three broad goals, four separate yet linked focal points comprised of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods evaluations of official data are examined. The findings in the study call into question the current American counter-drug law enforcement agenda being used to address the ongoing heroin epidemic. Furthermore, the results shine light on various shortcomings in overall U.S. counter-drug policy. Finally, the study calls for a new approach to address illicit drug trafficking and use in the U.S.

This thesis primary aim is to examine specific deterrence; the fear of punishment experienced by individuals who have committed crimes and subsequently received a punishment. Specific deterrence is assumed to deter criminals from reoffending. The secondary aim of this thesis is to examine the perceptions of increased punishments as a measure to prevent crime, as deterrence theory predicts that increased punishment correlates to decreased criminality. The Swedish government has continually proposed and implemented increased punishments. As such, the validity of specific deterrence and the effectiveness of increased punishments requires examination in a Swedish context. Perceptions and experiences of specific deterrence, and perceptions of the deterring effect of increased punishments, was examined in 12 semi-structured interviews with people who have committed a crime and received subsequent punishment. The material was analysed using thematic analysis, and the results found that the participants did not experience deterrence, as drug addiction, fear of consequences from other criminals, and perceptions of apprehension and severity of punishment inhibited, or eliminated, specific deterrence. Increased punishments were not thought to have affected past criminal actions, but opinions on increased punishments to combat current criminality were both positive and negative. By applying General Strain theory, the study found that the presence of a stronger experience of strain eliminated or diminished specific deterrence.

Stafford and Warr (1993) reconceptualized general and specific deterrence into a single theory in which individuals' propensities to engage in criminal behavior are based on some combination of personal experiences with being punished and avoiding punishment and vicarious (or indirect) experiences with being punished and avoiding punishment. The researchers make a substantial contribution to the deterrence literature by accounting for the effect of punishment avoidance when assessing deterrence theory. Despite the theoretical appeal of this restatement, few studies have tested its empirical merit. The current study tests the applicability of Stafford and Warr's model but also addresses several key limitations that still exist in the deterrence literature. The present study was the first of its kind to directly test Stafford and Warr's (1993) model, blending specific and general deterrence, on an offending population. The majority of perceptual deterrence research examines largely pro-social groups. Evidence suggests that offenders may have unique decision-making processes and may be very different from those typically studied in deterrence research. Identifying the relevant deterrents among non-conventional or offending populations has significant policy implications. Additionally, in order to understand the decision-making process of criminals, this study incorporated alternative sanction forms from a rational choice perspective into the deterrence framework. This is a particularly salient point because non-legal costs may be more influential in criminal decision-making than formal sanctions. By examining the deterrent effects of several other factors (besides the traditional variables studied in deterrence models) among a non-conventional population, findings may suggest methods for designing more effective punishments. Therefore, the present study conducted survey research of high-criminality among an adult sample. This dissertation recruited 326 work release inmates from Orange County, Florida, and asked them to complete a written questionnaire. Results from the bivariate analyses revealed some support for the deterrence doctrine and the rational choice perspective. However, more rigorous tests of these predictions revealed no support for deterrence theory. Even though this study concluded that deterrence alone does not adequately predict future offending, the idea of choice was upheld. The results from this dissertation and from several other studies suggest the need for further analysis of the effect of extralegal sanctions on future criminal activity, especially among non-conventional populations. The current study offers suggestions for effective crime control policies and directions on how future research can clarify the inconsistencies between the theoretical predictions of deterrence theory and empirical reality.

Internet usage has become a norm in most organizations where organizations have started monitoring employee, Internet usage, e-mail communications, social network usage and etc. With the increased Internet usage, Internet misuse by employees has increased the potential for security vulnerabilities for these organizations. Organizations have established various security countermeasures such as sanctions, incentives, and Internet usage policies in order to prevent Internet misuse and protect the organizational information assets. However, it is important for organizations to understand whether these Internet usage polices are effective in mitigating the threats towards Internet misuse. Therefore, this dissertation investigates the impact of different countermeasures such as sanctions, incentives and awareness of being monitored on Internet usage policy compliance. Furthermore, it investigates the impact of organizational stewardship culture consisting of collectivism and low power distance, on Internet usage policy compliance behavior. A research model was developed to test the influence of penalties (sanction severity, sanction certainty, sanction celerity), incentives, collectivism and power distance on Internet usage policy compliance intention. Furthermore, it investigates the impact of awareness of being monitored which has not received much attention from information security researchers. In order to test the hypothesized relationships in the research model, data was collected utilizing an online survey through an online survey panel provider, Amazon Mechanical Turk. The findings indicate that, sanction certainty, awareness of being monitored, collectivism and power distance have a significant influence on Internet usage policy compliance intention of the sample population. Additionally, when employees are aware that they are being monitored, it increases the effectiveness of sanction severity and celerity. This dissertation makes several contributions to research and practitioners. It contributes to research by investigating the impact of two contrasting theories where agency theory assumes that employees are motivated through extrinsic factors whereas stewardship theory assumes that they are motivated through intrinsic means (organizational stewardship culture). It contributes to practitioners as well by highlighting the importance of controls such as computer monitoring, swift punishments in protecting organizational assets. As the results suggest, apart from the controls, organizational stewardship culture can play an important role in mitigating some of these threats as well.

Nuclear weapons are considered to be the most destructive military weapons in the modem era. The combination of extensive destruction and the fact that nuclear missiles cannot be stopped makes nuclear weapons a major game changer in international security. When a country manages to weaponize nuclear material and is also able to make a delivery system the balance of power in the region is shifted. The roots of deterrence theory and modem balance of power theory are based on nuclear weapons capabilities between countries. In Southwest Asia, nuclear proliferation is common and has an important influence on the balance of power in the region. The combination of a turbulent history and a threatening environment are suitable for countries to try and develop nuclear weapons in order to overcome a security dilemma. This paper will attempt to demonstrate that nuclear proliferation in Southwest Asia is used as a deterrent against neighboring enemies and not a means to achieve regional dominance. This paper will illustrate this phenomenon through three case studies- Israel, Pakistan, and Iran. Each case will look at the historical evolution, political development, and military/security condition of each country and how each has influenced the decision of its leaders to commit to nuclear proliferation.

This study attempted to identify ways to improve voluntary compliance and minimize taxpayer burden, but also tries to understand the behavior of taxpayers’ compliance given the compliance regimen. Most explicitly, it attempted to identify ways to improve payment compliance using regimens already utilized in other parts of the tax code. The research question was whether different tax regimes, such as safe harbor, can change the behavior of employment tax payment for small business or self-employed taxpayers. The idea was to determine if a safe harbor provision can reduce the proclivity of authorized individuals to implement a payroll tax dilemma strategy and whether or regimen can reduce payment noncompliance in time of economic distress. To answer the research question, an online experiment was employed. The experimental design was an impact study. The population of interest in this study was all authorized individuals from small and self-employed firms. The sample size totaled 205, and it was based on the a-priori sample size calculation. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was chosen as the data analysis technique, but other nonparametric test and logistic regression models were used to further analyze the data. This study showed that for subjects who did not subscribed to safe harbor provision but experienced an increased probability of apprehension increased their payment compliance. Also, the availability of a safe harbor provision lead to a large numbers to a safe harbor provision subscription in order to avoid enforcement. This study was able to show that individuals were willing to improve their payment compliance rate when enforcement was increased. The General Deterrence Theory explains that increased deterrence will lead to higher compliance. The study showed a 10 percent improvement in payment compliance when safe harbor was implemented. The results from this study also suggest that provisions such as a safe harbor can be a method of reducing filing costs and audit costs and ultimately taxpayer burden. On the other hand, the results of this study were inconclusive in determining if such provisions can improve payment compliance. Nevertheless, the outcome of this study can improve timing and accuracy of employment taxes payments and it may improve the accuracy of employment tax payment.