This article will outline three theories; deterrence theory, rational choice theory and restorative justice theory. It will outline in detail the policies and connections between theory, research and policy. Deterrence theory can be outlined as “principles of certainty, severity and celerity of punishment, proportionality, specific and general deterrence” (Burke, 2009). For punishment to be effective it must be certain, rapid and severe. Certainty is more important than severity in deterring crime. Deterrence theory confirms that if punishment contains these three elements people will rationally calculate that there is more to lose than gain from the crime (Gordon, 2010). Deterrence works in two ways. General deterrence is the punishment of the offender to set an example for others in society, while specific deterrence focuses on repeat offenders to refrain from the act (Burke, 2009). The purpose of general deterrence is to refrain from the idea of ​​committing the crime. It has been argued that when the certainty, severity, and swiftness of criminal sanctions are high in a population, criminal behavior will be low. Studies suggest that capital punishment has been ineffective, other studies show that more murders occurred when the death penalty was publicized (Pacotti, 2005). So a comparative research shows that the 5 countries with the highest murder rate impose the death penalty, on average 41.6% murders per 100,000 people, while the five countries that do not impose the death penalty are 21, 6% per 100,000 (Gordon, 2010). Deterrence also has a limited effect on domestic cases, drunk driving and shoplifting. Deterrence is well said in theory but in reality… middle of the paper… in certain circumstances of a situation. Restorative justice has been widely used, and has some success rate, so that those who need to be held accountable without being sanctioned; Repairing the damage or paying compensation will restore harmony within the victim and the community to some extent. The program is inconsistent in repairing the harm done to the victim, but many victims are left emotionally, psychologically, and physically strained, which will lead to another conflict during victim-offender mediation. Overall, he concludes with the idea that some programs can be effective and has ties to his theory; others may be ineffective at deterring, remediating and restoring crime, as well as having a low success rate. Furthermore, in many cases offenders do not think rationally before committing the act and the crime cannot be deterred no matter whether the punishment is harsh or lenient.