Without Accountability, There Is No Deterrence

Laws lose credibility when consequences become uncertain—and innocent people pay the price.

MAGA Viral Opinion and Commentary graphic for TD Simon’s article “Without Accountability, There Is No Deterrence,” featuring a dark courthouse-themed background with navy, gold, cream and red editorial styling

A society cannot claim to believe in law and order while repeatedly returning dangerous offenders to the streets.

There is a lesson I spent more than three decades teaching young people in history, government, and civics:

Every action has a consequence.

Good actions have consequences.

Bad actions have consequences.

Responsibility has consequences.

Irresponsibility has consequences.

When a society begins pretending that bad behavior should somehow be separated from consequences, that society is not becoming more compassionate.

It is becoming less stable.

That is where this discussion has to begin, because accountability is not cruelty.

Accountability is one of the foundations of civilization.

A free society cannot function if people are told that laws matter, but then discover over and over again that breaking those laws produces little or no meaningful consequence.

At some point, Americans have every right to ask a simple question:

What exactly are laws for if we refuse to enforce them?

Federal research has repeatedly found that criminal history is closely associated with recidivism and that violent federal offenders are rearrested at higher rates than nonviolent offenders.

Those findings do not mean every person with a record will reoffend. They do mean patterns matter—and the justice system ignores those patterns at the public’s peril.

When a repeat violent offender commits another serious crime, people naturally ask:

Why was this person still out there?

That is not an unreasonable question.

It is the question a responsible society should be asking.

When someone has demonstrated repeatedly that he cannot or will not obey the law, society eventually has an obligation to protect innocent people from him.

That is not vengeance.

That is responsibility.

STOP BLAMING POLICE FOR DECISIONS THEY DO NOT MAKE

Law enforcement officers do not write sentencing laws.

They do not determine parole policy, create early-release programs or decide how much of every sentence will ultimately be served.

In many cases, officers have already done exactly what society asked them to do.

They investigated.

They arrested the offender.

They gathered evidence.

They testified.

They put the case into the justice system.

What happens after that belongs largely to prosecutors, judges, lawmakers, parole authorities and correctional systems.

So when a violent offender is arrested again and again, convicted again and again, released again and again, and then commits another horrific crime against an innocent person, we need to stop automatically asking:

“Why didn’t the police stop him?”

Sometimes the police did stop him.

The system put him back.

And that distinction matters.

A police officer can arrest the same violent criminal ten times.

If the rest of the system repeatedly returns that criminal to the street, do not blame the officer when there is an eleventh victim.

At some point, accountability has to extend beyond the arrest.

SERIOUS CRIME MUST CARRY SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES

If someone is convicted of a serious violent crime, the sentence should mean something.

If a judge says ten years, the public and the victim should not be left guessing what that sentence actually means.

If a person is convicted of murder, rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault, a serious crime against a child or another major violent offense, society has every right to expect the punishment imposed to be meaningful.

What is the purpose of announcing a sentence if everyone assumes the actual time served may be only a fraction of it?

What lesson does that teach the offender?

What lesson does it teach the public?

And maybe just as importantly:

What lesson does it teach the victim?

Imagine sitting in a courtroom after someone has victimized you or someone you love.

You hear the sentence.

You believe justice has finally been done.

Then, years later, you discover that the offender is back on the street far sooner than you expected.

What exactly was the sentence worth?

A sentence that is not understood is not much of a warning.

A consequence that appears uncertain loses credibility.

And a law without credible enforcement eventually becomes little more than ink on paper.

THERE COMES A POINT WHEN SOCIETY HAS TO SAY ENOUGH

Justice requires us to distinguish between different kinds of offenders.

A teenager who makes one terrible mistake is not necessarily the same as a career violent criminal.

A first-time nonviolent offender is not necessarily the same as someone who has spent years victimizing other people.

Someone who has genuinely changed is not necessarily the same as someone who returns to violence every time he is released.

Justice requires judgment.

But there comes a point when someone’s own behavior answers the question for us.

If a person has been convicted repeatedly of serious violent crimes and repeatedly demonstrates that he cannot safely function within the laws of society, then society must protect itself.

At that point, the question is no longer simply:

“What does this offender need?”

The question must also be:

“What do innocent people need?”

And innocent people need protection.

THE JUSTICE SYSTEM HAS RESPONSIBILITIES TO VICTIMS TOO

Sometimes our discussions about criminal justice become so focused on the offender that we almost forget someone else exists.

The victim.

The family.

The child.

The widow.

The parent burying a son.

The neighborhood afraid to walk outside.

The police officer facing the same violent offender again.

The law-abiding citizen wondering whether the system cares more about the criminal’s future than protecting everyone else.

A justice system has responsibilities to defendants.

Of course it does.

Due process matters.

Rights matter.

Fair trials matter.

The Constitution matters.

But the justice system also has responsibilities to victims and to the public.

Those responsibilities matter too.

Justice cannot mean endless second chances for one person while innocent people are forced to absorb the consequences.

Eventually, somebody pays the price for a broken system.

Too often, it is someone who never broke the law at all.

PAROLE SHOULD BE A PRIVILEGE, NOT AN EXPECTATION

I am not opposed to mercy.

I am not opposed to rehabilitation.

I am not opposed to second chances.

Those things have a legitimate place in a civilized justice system.

For nonviolent offenders, first-time offenders, people who demonstrate genuine rehabilitation and cases in which public safety is not seriously threatened, supervised release or parole can make sense.

But violent crime is different.

That distinction matters.

People convicted of the most serious violent offenses should serve the sentence imposed except under truly extraordinary circumstances.

Parole should be tightly restricted when we are talking about murder, rape, aggravated assault, armed robbery, serious crimes against children or repeat violent offending.

Why?

Because public safety must matter.

Every time a dangerous repeat offender is released and commits another violent act, a new victim is created by a decision that victim never got to make.

A parole board makes a decision.

A system makes a decision.

An offender receives another chance.

Then an innocent stranger pays the price.

That is not justice.

DETERRENCE IS BUILT ON CERTAINTY

People sometimes misunderstand deterrence.

They think it requires the harshest possible punishment.

Not necessarily.

One of the strongest deterrents is certainty—the belief that criminal conduct will be detected and followed by a real consequence.

The National Institute of Justice has emphasized that the certainty of being caught is a far stronger deterrent than simply increasing the severity of punishment.

That distinction is important.

Longer sentences alone do not automatically produce stronger deterrence. Incarceration also serves a different purpose: incapacitation, which prevents a dangerous offender from harming the public while confined.

The public needs to know that the system works consistently.

Offenders need to understand that criminal conduct is likely to be detected, prosecuted and answered with a proportionate consequence.

Not maybe.

Not depending on politics.

Not depending on whether the system decides later that its own judgment was inconvenient.

If people believe they will be arrested and immediately released without a meaningful response, deterrence weakens.

If they believe charges will disappear regardless of the evidence, deterrence weakens.

If they believe long patterns of violent behavior will continually be ignored, deterrence weakens.

When consequences become less certain, the perceived cost of criminal behavior becomes lower.

Parents understand it.

Teachers understand it.

Employers understand it.

Soldiers understand it.

Police officers understand it.

History understands it.

Why would the justice system operate under different rules?

PEOPLE ARE LOSING FAITH IN THE SYSTEM

Americans are angry, frustrated and scared.

In many places, they are furious with a justice system they believe no longer delivers justice.

That should concern every one of us, because a republic depends on public trust.

Citizens have to believe the rules apply.

They have to believe courts mean something.

They have to believe sentences mean something.

They have to believe dangerous people will be removed from the streets.

They have to believe victims matter.

When citizens repeatedly see violent offenders cycle through the justice system, confidence begins collapsing.

People begin asking:

What is the point?

That is a dangerous question for any society.

Once people stop believing the system protects them, respect for the entire system begins to erode.

When respect for the rule of law disappears, rebuilding it is very difficult.

JUSTICE IS NOT REVENGE

Calling for accountability is not the same as calling for vengeance.

Justice should never be driven by rage.

It should not be arbitrary or cruel, and it should not treat every offense exactly the same.

A strong system recognizes differences.

It leaves room for mercy, rehabilitation and second chances.

But mercy cannot mean pretending patterns do not exist.

Second chances cannot become thirtieth chances for violent repeat offenders.

Rehabilitation cannot become an excuse for repeatedly gambling with the safety of innocent citizens.

There must be a balance.

Mercy belongs in the justice system.

Accountability belongs there too.

A society that remembers one and forgets the other eventually fails everybody.

It fails the offender because it creates no meaningful incentive to change.

It fails the victim because justice becomes meaningless.

And it fails the public because dangerous behavior is allowed to continue.

ACCOUNTABILITY CREATES DETERRENCE—AND PROTECTION

Deterrence is not just about punishing someone after something terrible happens.

A credible deterrent helps prevent the terrible thing from happening in the first place.

The best violent crime is the one that never happens.

The best robbery is the one someone decides not to commit.

The best assault is the one somebody thinks twice about because he believes he will be caught.

The best victim is the person who never becomes one.

Not everyone will be deterred.

There will always be people who ignore consequences.

That does not mean deterrence has no value. It means deterrence has limits, just like every institution created by human beings.

For those who are not deterred—and who repeatedly commit serious violence—incapacitation protects the public by preventing additional crimes while they remain confined.

The logic is not complicated.

Credible enforcement creates certainty.

Certainty strengthens deterrence.

Proportionate sentences impose accountability.

Incapacitation protects the public from those who continue to offend.

When the system performs those responsibilities consistently, trust can return.

People begin believing that reporting crimes matters.

Police begin believing their arrests matter.

Victims begin believing the courtroom matters.

Citizens begin believing the rules matter.

That is what law and order actually means.

It does not simply mean more police officers, bigger prisons or harsher punishment for every crime.

It means understandable laws, fair enforcement, proportional consequences, meaningful sentencing and a justice system that protects both constitutional rights and public safety.

That is not radical.

For most of American history, we would have called it common sense.

WE NEED SENTENCES THAT MEAN SOMETHING

If we are serious about restoring trust, serious violent crime must carry meaningful consequences.

Violent offenders should serve the sentence they are given.

Parole should focus on people who demonstrate genuine rehabilitation without creating an unreasonable public-safety risk.

Repeat violent criminals should face increasingly serious consequences.

Judges, prosecutors, parole boards, correctional officials, lawmakers and law enforcement all have different responsibilities.

But every part of that system must understand one principle:

Protecting innocent people is not optional.

History teaches that institutions weaken when their rules lose credibility.

It does not happen overnight.

First, a standard is ignored.

Then an exception becomes common.

Enforcement becomes inconsistent.

People begin testing the system.

More people realize the boundary is not really a boundary anymore.

Eventually, leaders look around and wonder how things deteriorated so badly.

It deteriorated one ignored consequence at a time.

You cannot maintain order by continually demonstrating that disorder carries no meaningful price.

Eventually, people learn the lesson the system has been teaching them.

BRING BACK A SENSE OF JUSTICE

America does not need revenge.

America needs justice.

We need consequences that fit crimes.

We need sentences that mean what they say.

We need mercy where mercy is deserved.

We need rehabilitation where rehabilitation is possible.

But we also need the courage to admit when someone has repeatedly demonstrated that releasing him again creates an unacceptable danger to everyone else.

We need a justice system that ordinary Americans can look at and say:

That is fair.

That makes sense.

That protects people.

That holds people responsible.

We do not restore law and order with another speech about crime.

We restore it when every institution in the justice system understands that rights matter, mercy matters and rehabilitation matters—

and victims matter too.

We restore it when accountability once again becomes something more than a word.

Because the principle is as old as civilization itself:

Without accountability, there are no meaningful consequences.

Without meaningful consequences, there is no credible system of justice.

Without credible enforcement, deterrence weakens.

And when the system repeatedly fails to protect the public, innocent people pay the price.

America can do better.

America must do better.

SOURCES AND FURTHER READING

National Institute of Justice: “Five Things About Deterrence”
June 5, 2016
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence

U.S. Sentencing Commission: “Recidivism of Federal Violent Offenders Released in 2010”
February 10, 2022
https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-federal-violent-offenders-released-2010