Pros And Cons Of Desistance

However, this option is not utilitarian. This is shown when Levitt and Dubner write “Even for someone who considers a fetus to be worth only one one-hundredth of a human being, the trade-off between higher abortion and lower crime is, by an economist’s reckoning, terribly inefficient” (144). The loss of those fetuses greatly outweighs benefits of lower crime rates making it a non-utilitarian answer to crime. In their book, Levitt and Dubner take a utilitarian tone while discussing topics of increased police numbers, gun restriction, the legalization of abortion and the role they play in reducing crime rates in the 1990’s.

Felony Disenfranchisement, hinders ex-felons to exercise their free will after they have served their time in prison. Disenfranchisement laws are racist, take away individuals freedom, and have a huge impact on recidivism. The majority of states in the U.S. have some sort of disenfranchisement laws. This means that in most states, once an individual is convicted of a felony, that individual will lose their right to vote.

Submission 3 Should the U.S Congress Repeal the Second Chance Act? Argument 1 - Privilege: that privilege was abundant and as such defeat the purpose of serving one’s actual sentence for the ills committed Analysis of Argumentation The question here is that what is the type of prisoner you want to return on the streets? Should he be the same person who came in and continue to do the crimes or should he be the person who would have been changed for good? The underlying difference here is that the person who is good is a subjective question.

In his article, Removing the Stigma of Past Incarceration: Ban the Box, Bill Mosley explains it is “understandable that many employers may believe it is their best interest to avoid hiring ex-convicts. But it is also in the interest of society at large to reintegrate ex-convicts into society and to stop adding to the large underclass of former prisoners with minimal prospects of earning an honest living.” Mosley acknowledges the discomfort an employer may experience knowing one of their employees have a criminal history, however he supports his opinion by immediately explaining the most effective medium of reducing the number of former prisoners in society is to integrate them into the working force. His purport in this piece of text is to accentuate the importance society as a whole has in terms of eliminating criminal discrimination. In addition to Mosley’s argument, Daryl V. Atkinson and Kathleen Lockwood, in their article The Benefits of Ban the Box, claim that “hiring people with criminal records facilitates public safety by reducing recidivism rates.”

The chapter then turns to the major, unexpected drop in crime throughout the US in the 1980's. The authors aim to show how conventional answers are not necessarily the strongest by analyzing various explanations, including increased policing, a stronger economy, and the decline of the crack cocaine market.

This paper focuses on Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT), its foundational theory, interventions, and application to a case study. Its founders were Susan Johnson and Leslie Greenberg, and they officially labeled the theory in the 1980s . The theory was based on John Bowlby’s Attachment Theory and connection between the amygdala and cerebral cortex. Originally, there were nine steps to the interventions used to work with couples. However, over the years, Johnson narrowed the interventions down to three stages of change, while Greenberg narrowed it down to five stages of framework.

It was a middle-range theory for healthcare practice. In year 1994, Kolcaba published the first article on comfort theory and in year 2001, there were subsequent articles that had been published. Kolcaba had developed the ‘Theory of Comfort’ by conducting a concept analysis of comfort by examine literature from multiple disciplines such as nursing, medicine, ergonomics and psychology. According to Kolcaba, in nursing the product of holistic care in ‘Comfort’.

Therefore, there is no

Most crimes, they argue, are simple to commit, require no long-term planning, and provide few long-term benefits. In addition, this theory implies that individuals who were inadequately parented before the age of eight develop less self-control than individuals of approximately the same age who were raised with better parenting. Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that parents must monitor their children, recognize bad behavior, and correct this bad behavior. If self-control has not developed by ages eight to ten, they argue, it is not likely to develop. As a result, research have indicated that low levels of self-control are relevant to criminal and impulsive

This puts it into the reader’s minds that these juveniles are indeed not yet adults, and therefore should not be tried as such. Lundstrom also uses statistics that prove that juvenile crime is down, that “the nation’s juvenile arrest for murder fell 68 percent from 1993 to 1999, hitting its lowest level since 1966, according to the Justice Department. The juvenile arrest rate for violent crime overall fell 36 percent from 1994 to 1999.”(19) The reason why she adds this is because, in a previous paragraph, Dan Macallair from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco stated that “We’ve created this image tht teenagerrs are something to be feared,”(16) proving that the crime rate for these teens have dropped dramatically, showing that adolescents are not as violent as they once were.

It is believed that letting a criminal free from incarceration puts society at risk. Before the reform recidivism rates were high, scaring the public with the idea that criminals can reenter society. When comparing individuals who were sentenced to prison to those in diversion programs, those in diversion programs were more likely to stay out of jail while those who went to jail were more likely to have re-arrests. It was reported that 64% of the treatment sample were arrest-free over a two-year follow up period. Those in the diversion program had recidivism rates as low as 36%; this compares to the group who were given jail time with a recidivism rate of 54% (Parsons, Wei, Henrichson, Drucker, & Trone, 2015).

Keeping the legal drinking age the same is doing nothing to help this country or the people in it, more people will die or be seriously injured because of alcohol if we do nothing to promote responsible drinking. This paper might not make a difference in the fight to lower the MLDA, or treat the young adults in this country like true adults, but you

Bohm indicates that when recidivism was defined similarly, rates remained static. Researchers felt a good indicator of an inmate’s inclination to continue to commit crimes upon released was his past arrest history. Prisoners who possessed extensive records of arrest /incarceration were more likely to be rearrested; therefore implying those with fewer arrests were less likely to refrain from committing criminal acts. Bohm also states that the most critical time for an inmate to relapse and return to prison is within the first year of release, “two-thirds of all the recidivism of the first 3 years occurred in the first year” and additionally …” more than three of every ten inmates are returned to prison within 4 years…”(2012). Research indicates

Gun Control would lower crime rate Crime is a major social and legal problem not just an issue of our individual psychology. ( Great Robberies) This meaning that crime is a major issue in society and gun control would lower crime rate. Crime and murder is a major problem in our society, I believe that if you impose gun control, crime and murder rate would drop percentages. California passed some of the nation’s most strict gun laws over the past two decades, and gun deaths have declined by more than half.

The reasoning from both Smith and the Supreme Court’s decisions are fair and understands the severity of the violations of s.7 and s.15 of the Charter from s.14 and s.241 (b) in the Criminal Code, which places citizens such as Taylor into impossible scenarios where they are forced to choose between two unfavourable deaths. It has been two decades since the case of Rodriguez, and while it is unfortunate that an exception was not made for her, circumstances have now changed. There are new jurisdictions within the world that allow for assisted suicide and they have proven that such a system can work, while still achieving the government’s goal of limiting and protecting those who are vulnerable to coercion and influence. It is strange that Canada, which prides itself for its rights and freedoms, restricts the biggest right of all: of controlling one’s own death. The Canadian government must use the 12 months of suspension given by the Supreme Court of Canada to begin to create a balance