Category: Uncategorized

Understanding of Jails and Treatment Programs

A number of people commit crimes daily in the various states and cities in the United States. Some of these crimes are of misdemeanor, whereas some can be categorized as felony cases. The varying complexity of these cases alters the approach and time it takes the investigating and prosecuting agencies to deliver a verdict. Moreover, it is imperative that people whose offences are pending investigations and those whose investigations are complete and verdict delivered be confined in separate places. This has led to the development of the jails and the treatment programs in order to cater for those varying needs of the offenders.

Jails and why they are Necessary

            The understanding of jails is that of a secured facility within a jurisdiction and under the management of the states that serving as a place where people who have been arrested of various offences are held. The offences can range from arrests from various crimes such as dangerous driving, driving vehicles with expired licenses, and other misdemeanor cases. In the jails, the confined individuals are often held pending sentencing, trial, plea agreements and those waiting to be transferred to other prisons. It can also hold people such offenders upon conviction, provided they are convicted to serve prison sentences of less than a year.  The jails continue to play a critical role in the society in several ways helping serve the interests of the community and the state through the criminal justice department. 

Read also Why Prison Population is Increasing in the United States

            Jails are considered as the institutions that are critical in the effective functioning of the criminal justice system. According to (Blomberg, Brancale, Beaver & Bales, 2016) jails are the first process in the criminal justice system, where offenders are taken after arrests. Through the jails, the offenders can then enter or leave the criminal justice system and in this way it has significant impact on the community. According to the authors the jails impact the community in many perspectives. It serves as a mean through which the offenders are confined pending their trial. Since offences vary in degree of severity, jails serves as a means through which such offenders can be confined for the safety of the offended and the community, pending the hearing and determination of their cases. Although some people who are arrested are released from the jails on plea bargaining, this ensures that their offences remain under scrutiny.

 Lurigio (2015) also points that as local institutions the jails play a critical in the community by serving the medical and behavioral needs of the community. The jails are the detention centers for offenders who sentence terms that do not exceed a year. These state jails provide a mechanism through which the offender behavior can be altered in addition to meeting their medical needs. When offenders enter the jails, they serve their jail terms with the hope that their behavior will change through the confinement and the various initiatives within the confines of the jails. The psychological counseling programs and job placements are f great importance in shaping the offenders behaviors. This ensures that upon their releases, such people have a better chance of living a productive life owing to the job skills and behavioral help offered in the jails, thus ensuring a more secure community.

            However, in spite of the important role that jails play in the community, there have been many concerns regarding the states of jails in the country. The policy shift from indeterminate to determinate sentencing has had varied implications on the jails. The one implication that is of great concern is the challenge of overcrowding in the state jails. According to (Blomberg, Brancale, Beaver & Bales, 2016; Lurigio, 2015) many state jails enjoy the highest offender traffic. The United States jails process many number offenders on daily basis, which is estimated at over 12 million admissions every year. According to the authors, the daily admissions in the United States jails stood at close to 800,000 per day as of 2014. The determinate policy led to development of punitive measures that rescinded the discretions that were enjoyed by the judges. The offenders who entered the state jails under the indeterminate policy had the opportunity to be afforded the reduce prison terms under the discretions of the judges.  The indeterminate policies afforded the offenders with the chance to have reduced jails terms based on the offence and the risk of recidivism.

The other policy measure that has had a direct influence on the increase in the state jail traffic is the rescinding of the parole. Given that majority of offenders in state jails are of misdemeanor cases, they can be released and placed under the parole supervision. However, this was rescinded and replaced by punitive and determinate prison sentences (Blomberg, Brancale, Beaver & Bales, 2016). This meant that even the cases that the otherwise defunct parole board would have placed under the supervision in parole are now forced to go to trial and upon conviction specific jail terms are determined that is to be spend in jail. Parole not only afforded offenders with the reduced sentence terms, but also ensured that the offenders who had low risk towards recidivism were allowed to work under confines of the law under parole supervision. This reduced the sentence terms and the time spend in jails. The move to the more punitive criminal justice system evidence in the policy shift removed the parole which has led to large offender traffic in state jails. This increase in state jail offender traffic has had negative impact on the funding of the state prisons. In addition, the combination elimination of parole and the introduction of determinate sentencing have led to increased overcrowding in the state jails.

The major rationale behind the policy shift towards the determinate and the parole elimination was to reduce crime rates through more stringent prison terms. According to (Baker, Falco Metcalfe, Berenblum, Aviv & Gertz, 2014) the increase in crimes in the 1960s in the United States initiated a political movement towards tough stance towards crime. The policy change was further influenced by media presentations, possible racial bias and the generally fear amng the population towards crime. Despite these policy changes, little is known about the effectiveness of these policies, instead it has led to mass incarceration. Cadora (2013) reports that the only instances that the punitive policy shifts led to the reduction in crime rates in the United States are the 2010, 2011, and 2012 periods. The conclusion that be drawn from this is that rehabilitative policies are much more effective than punitive measures as suggested in (Baker, Falco Metcalfe, Berenblum, Aviv & Gertz, 2014) who reports increased public support and reduction in recidivism.

Although the American jails are facing problems of overcrowding and inadequate funding, they remain very important elements of the country’s criminal justice system.  These problems affecting the state jails are just a product of the punitive and sentencing policies that were introduced, which saw the elimination of the parole boards. Increased rehabilitation of the offenders through the community treatment centers and other forms of punishment can be critical in solving these problems.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Treatment Programs

            The offender treatment programs are mostly education-based and have been designed in order to help the offender to eliminate their problem behaviors, attitudes and or teach those skills that are useful in their lives (Grady, Edwards & Pettus-Davis, 2016). An example offender treatment program is the Sex Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation (SOAR) Program. The major goals of the treatment programs are to reduce the offender risks towards re-offending. They are based on the premise that the offenders will have an interest in the treatment information, understand it benefits, and employ the benefits to change their behaviors and improve their circumstance. The use of the offender treatment programs is associated with several advantages and disadvantages.

Read also Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Treatment – Final Project : Research Paper

            The major advantage of the treatment programs is that they are comparatively cheaper in the long-term compared to the imprisonment. The major goal of the treatment programs is the elimination or the reduction of recidivism. It impacts are long-term and are more effective and less costly compared to prisoners who do not undergo treatment programs as they have higher chances of re-offending. Given that the costs of maintaining prisons and prisoners have increased over the years due to increased incarceration, treatment programs offers a better alternative to incarceration or incapacitation.

Read also How Correctional Concerns Impact Clinical Treatment of Offenders

The other advantages of offender treatment programs are that they are effective and have been hailed for reduction in recidivism. For example, Grady, Edwards & Pettus-Davis (2016) reprted a significant reduction in non-violent recidivism among the sexual offenders enrolled in the SOAR program. The other advantages are that the treatment programs provide a mechanism of peer interaction especially in group treatment, which has been hailed of being as powerful as the one-on-one patient therapeutic interaction (Abadinsky, 2008). Moreover, the presence of many treatment tools such as SOAR and twelve-step make the use of treatment programs much easier.

Read also Important Treatment Needs for Offenders

Although the treatment programs have some advantages, the use of these offender programs also poses some limitations. According to (Grady, Edwards & Pettus-Davis, 2016) the treatment programs are based on the assumptions that the offenders will be interested in the treatment information and that they would use the same in their behavior and attitude change. However, the traditional goal of the offender treatment programs have been shown to have low appeal to the offenders as some of the offenders may show lack of interest or may view them as irrelevant. In addition, these treatment programs have been associated with reduced treatment completion and outcomes. This is true especially when the targeted offenders show little engagement in the programs. The other disadvantages is that they can be costly to hire and maintain professionals specialized in the specific programs, and some of the programs can nly apply to offenders of certain level of education and may not be employed among the juvenile offender is lower levels of education and in need of such treatments.

Why Prison Population is Increasing in the United States

The United States prison population has been increasing over the past 40 years. According to (Phelps, 2016) the United States witnessed a change in its criminal justice policy that has witnessed what the author terms as mass incarceration.  The decision has had profound effects on the prison populations in the country, resulting in more people being sent to state and federal prisons. That in 1981 the United States federal prison population stood at just less than 24,000 prisoners, is hard to believe given the current number which stands at millions.

Read also Prison is Ineffective Because Most People Come out Worse Than They Went in

According to (Fairweather & McConville, 2013) the United States prison population has been on the rise since 1981, leading to an increase in overcrowding rates. By 2006, the number of prisoners in the federal prisons had reached over 2.3 million, with the current number as of 2016 standing at an estimated 6,613,500 (Kaeble, Glaze, Tsoutis & Minton, 2016). This tremendous growth in the number of people under prison supervision has been affected by factors such as truth in sentencing, determinate sentencing, states abolishing parole, and sentencing guidelines. The paper will focus on how these four factors have affected the prison population growth rate in the United States.

Read also Overview of Medical Experiments on Prisoners


            The prison population in the United States is considered one of the highest among the developed countries in the world. In the last 40 years, the country has been regarded as having been in what (Spohn, 2014) referred to as unprecedented” imprisonment binge”. However, the author asserts that in reality, the increase in the prison population in the country’s federal prisons is not directly linked with the crime rates. As a matter of fact, one would expect that increasing prison population is as a result of increased incarceration due to increased crime rates. Rather, Spohn points that the crimes rates in the United States have been on a steady decline since 1991 (pp. 535-36). Instead the increase in the number of prisoners has been attributed the sentencing policy changes and practices that the favored use of imprisonment.

Read also CJ503 – How Poor Attitudes among Correctional Staff in a State Prison Might Affect other Aspects of that Prison

            The favor for the use of imprisonment has not only led to an increase in the number of prisoners in the United States prisons and the increase in the in the prisoner admission rates, but has also led to an increase in the time served for violent crimes through punitive laws (Spohn, 2014). The adoption of these criminal justice punitive policy changes are attributed to such laws as the Truth-in-Sentencing statutes, the mandatory minimum sentences, the life sentence without possibility of parole (LOWP), the three-strikes sentencing provisions, and the sentencing guidelines that are punitive in nature.

Read also Sentencing Juveniles in Adult Courts – Sample Research Paper

            Initially, many prisoners were released to serve their prison terms under the discretionary paroles. This is reflected in the number of released offenders and the length of time they served in prison cells. According to (Li & Long, 2017) the highest number of prisoners released under discretionary parole reached a record high in 1977, but started to decline as new sentencing policies took effect. This was completely abolished in 1984 through the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Consequently, the release of prisoners on grounds of good behavior became limited and the states moved towards the determinate sentencing and the mandatory supervised release.

In order to ensure an increase in the mean serving time among federal offenders, the federal government enacted the Violent Offender Incarceration and the Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Formula Grant. The Truth-in-Sentencing program has played a huge role in the implementation of the increase in the time the prisoners spend in jail by funding the expansion or creation of new correctional facilities within the states that confines the offenders convicted of violent crimes. In addition, it warrants that states should ensure such felons spend at least 85% of their sentence terms in prison. In effect, the Congressional act allowed increased mean time spend by prisoners in jails, through funding of the incarceration services. As a result, the prisoners who were initially released early based on their risk to recidivism and behavior change are now forced to spend considerable time in prison, thus increasing dramatically the number of prisoners under confinement.

Determinate Sentencing

            The justice and corrections system in the United States has been governed for the better part of the 20th century under the indeterminate sentencing paradigm.  The indeterminate sentencing ensured that judges enjoyed a greater discretion in determining the type of sentence and their length (Neal & Rick, 2016). This included discretion on the decision on whether to send an offender on probation or to a jail term and the type of sentence for the offenders who entered the prison. It also gave the parole boards and judges the discretion to make decisions on rehabilitation based on the offender behavior, improvements, and the impact that they would have on the public safety when they delivered their punishments. However, the paradigm came under scrutiny and attacks in the 1970s, especially regarding the possibility of racial prejudice while giving sanctions. This led to the adoption of the determinate sentencing, which constrained the initial freedom enjoyed by the judges.

Read also Privatization of Prisons – Advantages And Disadvantages

            The determinate sentencing did not only curtail the discretion that was initially enjoyed by the judges but also introduced more punitive sentencing policies. According to (Neal & Rick, 2016) sentencing policies influences the incarceration rates through a number of ways. The authors point that it exerts influence on whether offenders should enter prison cell and the length of stay in prison. The discretionary release is not present in this paradigm, allowing the judges to offer fixed sentence lengths. This move towards a more punitive sentencing framework has been fund to be among the major drivers of the increase in the prison populations (pp. 4). Initially judges could exercise discretion under the indeterminate paradigm; however the introduction of fixed sentence terms that is proportionate with the offence and paroles means the offenders that could have been released now have to be given prison sentences that are proportionate with their offences.

States Abolishing Parole

            The 1984 Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) is considered one of the landmark legislations in the United States criminal justice system. The legislation has been so influential that it has defined the modern criminal justice system. According to (Berman, 2017), the SRA legislation created the U.S Sentencing Commission which eventually created the U.S Sentencing Guidelines that shaped the modern criminal justice system. However, what is of considerable concern is that the Sentencing Reform Act abolished parole. The elimination of parole by states through the SRA has been shown to have exacerbated the criminal justice system problem of increasing prison population.

Read also Probation Versus Parole

            Unlike probation which is an alternative to incarceration, parole often involves release of the prisoners after serving the prison terms on promise of abiding with the laws. Though both involve offender supervision, parole seeks to release prisoners who have reformed rather than having them complete their prison sentence without release.  According to (Petersilia & Threatt, 2017) release on parole provided many benefits including enhancing good behavior among the prisoners and as a critical “back end” to prison overcrowding. The elimination of indeterminate sentencing and the parole review by the states meant the use of fixed minimum sentence terms. Prisoners have to serve their sentence terms in full without parole, unlike before where based on behavior change and assessment of risk of recidivism prisoners would be released early. However, the abolition of parole means prisoners have to complete their sentence terms, which is a recipe for prison overcrowding and growth in prison population.

Read also M7A1 Essay – Abu Gharaib Prison Case Study Questions Answered

Sentencing Guidelines

            The greatest change that have occurred over the past two decades in the American sentencing is the move from the indeterminate sentencing towards the presumptive range of sentences that the judges must adhere to when sentencing offenders. For example during the pre-guidelines sentencing the courts released high number of offenders believed to have participated in crimes such as tax evasion, insider trading, theft, and antitrust offenses among others (Hinojosa, 2008).  However, the introduction of sentencing guidelines ensured long, determinate prison terms were introduced for such offenders. The author asserts that the commission wrote guidelines that classified many of the previous offenses as serious.      

Read also Effectiveness of the Current American Prison System      

In addition, Berman (2017), points that the commission doggedly intricate guidelines limited judicial discretion, in order to pursue uniformity and consistency. The introduction of sentencing guidelines meant that prisoners who could initially be released on parole and probation terms, were now required to serve determinate prison sentences. Moreover, the abolition of parole further complicated the problem. It now meant that offenders had to serve specific prison terms and were no longer going to enjoy parole terms, thus increasing significantly the prison populations which had reduced thanks to probation and parole.

Research Policies, Procedures and Findings Related to Classification of Offenders

Classification of Offenders

            In many western countries including the United States, Canada, and the UK, the two most important activities that are done as offenders enter the correctional facilities are offender assessment and classification. The major goals of correctional assessment and classification is to identify the needs of the offender and match them with the correctional resources for appropriate treatment and management, to enhance community protection and safety, and to improve the correctional operations and performance through reduction of recidivism and costs.

Read also Sex Offender Typologies – Child Sexual Abusers And Internet offenders

Although the two terms are related, classification refers to the procedures of placing the prisoners in one of the several prison levels, (for instance in the maximum, close, medium or minimum) in order to ensure the chosen levels match the prisoner needs with the available correctional resources (Travis & Edwards, 2014). The continued use of the offender classification in many western jurisdictions has seen development of many research, categories, procedures, and policies which are related with the subject. 

Read also The Negative Impact of the Growing Number of offenders in Community Corrections

Research Policies, Procedures and Findings Related with Classification of Offenders

The Low-Risk Policy

            One of the policies which is related with the classification of offenders is the low-risk policy, which was endorsed by the Criminal Law Committee in 2012. According to (Cohen, Cook & Lowenkamp, 2016) the policy states that low risk offenders are predicted by the Risk Prediction Index (RPI) and Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA) actuarial tools to have relatively lower rates to reoffend.  The policy outlines that the offenders who have been classified as low risk by either the Risk Prediction Index (RPI) or the Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA) actuarial tools are eligible under the low-risk policy. This means that once the offenders have been determined to be low-risk offenders under the PCRA and or RPI, the officers are mandated under the policy to limit their supervision activities on such offenders and instead focus on the monitoring of the compliance of offenders with release conditions, if applicable and responding to any changes that may be observed from the released offenders. However, the policy offers discretionary powers to the officers to place low-risk offenders under higher supervision level if they find under their personal judgment that such offender risks have been underestimated.

Read also Megan’s Law Of Sex Offenders

The Offender Classification Procedures under the Adam Walsh Act

            The convicted sex offenders are required to provide their contacts annually through registration in order to provide the law enforcement officers with information regarding their locations for purposes of monitoring, enforcement of restrictions, and to uphold no-contact orders. The procedures for sexual offender registry are provided for in the Adam Walsh Act. According to (Zgoba et al., 2016) the present Adam Walsh Act is dated back to 1994, when Jacob Wetterling Act was passed by the Congress as a response the threat that was posed by convicted sexual offenders living within the community that required the development and implementation of a system of registration and tracking of convicted sex offenders. The registration policy was amended further in 1996, when Megan’s Law was passed and again in 2006 that led to the replacement of the Watterling Act with the Adam Walsh Act.

Read also Criminal Profiling in the Detection and Apprehension of Offenders – Answered

            The Adam Walsh Act was passed with an intention to provide a Standardized Sex Offender Registration and Notification (SORN). According to (Ticknor & Warner, 2018), the SORN offers guidelines that standardize the sex offender policies across the United States.  In addition to requiring registration, the act provides a classification system for convicted sex offenders, it outlines the minimum required information, defines how communities will be notified, and the number of times the offender must update the contacts.

Read also Treatment of Offenders with Psychological Factors

The offender classification under the procedures defined in the act is based on three tiers. According to (Ticknor & Warner, 2018) the tier I offenders are required to register for 15 years and includes the offenders whose offense was not punishable by prison sentences exceeding one year, for example offences that involved possession of child pornography and attempted sexual assault. Tier II and III offenders includes the sexual offenses that attracted over 1 year of in prison sentences. It excludes offenses that actual sexual contact occurred. The authors point that the severity of the sexual contact is the source of the distinction between the two tiers. The additional criteria include the age of the victim r the nature of injury inflicted. The data that is collected include the demographic information, travel and immigrations status, temporary lodging details, criminal history, employment status and verifications, vehicle information, and a sample of their DNA or fingerprints. 

The Offender Classification Research Findings

            The process of offender risk assessment can be a challenging task and may be subject of influence of other factors. Several researches have been done on the effectiveness of the risk assessment tools such as research done on accuracy of SORNA, and the research done on the impact of changes in offender risk as evaluated in PCRA. Ticknor & Warner (2018) did a research that evaluated the effectiveness of SORNA in predicting offender recidivism. In their study involving several sex offenders, the authors found that the use of SORNA led to over classification of some offenders, resulting in more supervision even though they had not committed another offense.  The research also found that the classification tool was subject to racial bias as the research found that African-Americans were twice more likely to be classified than the Caucasians. In the other research on the impact offender risk assessment instruments scores on the evaluators, McCallum, Boccaccini & Bryson (2017) found that though actuarial instruments mattered among evaluators when making conclusions about offenders, other factors were more influential. According to the authors, other factors such as prior offending, empathy, treatment, and motivation, greatly influenced the evaluator final containment recommendations.

Read also Important Treatment Needs for Offenders

Analysis of the Policies, Procedures, and Research Findings

            The low-risk policy makes some reference to the RPI and PCRA, since the PCRA deployment within the federal was gradual thus it overlapped the earlier risk instrument that it replaced. The policy including the evaluation procedures stated earlier in SORNA are integral part of the post-conviction supervision. They ensure that the offenders are categorized according to the risks they pose (Cohen, Lowenkamp & VanBenschoten, 2016). Of particular importance is the fact that it ensures efficient use of fiscal resources. In addition, the research findings have found that the risk assessment tools are critical in offender evaluation, increasing the effectiveness of evaluation process. However, the evaluation tools are subject to the evaluator bias, which may lead to discrimination in the classification process.

Read also Sex-Offender Legislation and the Effectiveness of These Policies on Offenders and Our Communities

Strengths and Weaknesses to Determine the Best Practice in Offender Classification           

The low-risk policy and the risk assessment tools provide an effective framework for determine the offender level of risks. The major strengths of the risk assessment tools are that they provide an easier and yet effective way in which sex offenders can be assessed. McCallum, Boccaccini & Bryson (2017) notes that offender records can be hundreds or even thousands, which is easier to make assessment with the use of the assessment tools. The other strengths associated with SORNA and other assessment tools include simplicity and uniformity (Ticknor & Warner, 2018). However, the risk-assessment tools are associated with disadvantages such as a lack of consideration of the offender risk level as determined by known risk factors, background information, and criminogenic factors or to allow for overrides (pp 8). They can also be subject to evaluator bias and overclassification. Considering the strengths and weaknesses of the policy and classification evaluation tools, the best practice for the sex offender classification would be to combination the evaluation tools with a consideration of the offender external factors such previous criminal records, their age, sex and race, among other factors. Since most of the classification tools were developed using Caucasians, combining them with the offender external factors would reduce the bias.

Rationales for Punishments

Defining Punishment

Punishment is considered a central component of the criminal justice department. The philosophical theories assert that motives of punishment are to deter wronging on the part of the offender and those who observe. According to (Cushman, 2015) punishment has evolved into a mechanism that is used to teach social partners into how to behave in their future interactions. However, as outlined in Zedner (2015) criminologists have long agreed that punishment is a contested concept which is called upon to perform descriptive, analytical and normative work in the criminal justice system. Despite these agreements about its meaning, Zedner asserts the need to identify what constitutes the core of punishment. The author points that punishment consists of two fundamental elements; the censure and sanctions (pp. 4). The justified definition of punishments including the two core elements is the censure of the offender with the intentional application of hard treatment that is proportional to the offense committed by the offender.

Read also Criminal Defenses and Criminal Punishments

Rationales of Punishment

            The process of sentencing is critical in the criminal persecution.  According to (Dubber & Hörnle, 2014) the sentencing process is important as it determines where, how, and why the offender should be punished in what could be much or all of the remainder of their life.  The sentencing process outlines the type of punishment that the offender must be subjected to. These punishments vary and the philosophers have asserted that they are justified.  According to (Pojman, 2000) punishment can be justified in three distinct ways namely retribution, fairness, and deterrence. The author asserts that the other two ways in which punishment can be justified are incapacitation and moral education.

Read also Threat of Corporal Punishment And Juvenile Delinquency


            The main concept of retribution form of punishment is that the punishment given to the offender should be proportional to the offense committed by the offender (Tan & Xiao, 2018). Retribution holds that punishment as a justly deserved payback to the offender for the harm caused through their participating in an offense. It is the desire to see those who have violated the law get punished for their actions. According to (Mandery, 2012) retribution is derived from the notion that a punitive action is imposed because it is deserved. The author notes that based on the rationale, murderers should be given capital punishment because they earned it from their offense. The philosopher Emanuel Kant asserted that the notion of retribution is grounded in the respect of autonomy, and that if an offender is punished in order to deter others from committing an offense, then they are being treated as a means to an end.

Read also The Overlap of Crime, Punishment, and Poverty

            Although many scholars and policy makers in the criminal justice system have expressed opposition towards retribution, some feel it is justified. According to (Kimberly & Larry, 2017) retribution is a way of providing the most appropriate form of punishment of executing the elements of social debt and equity. Moreover, (Deigh, 2014) points that since social group order is more than relations among members, but includes rules that govern such relations. The author reiterates that punishment governed by such rules serves to preserve order when powerful members retaliate against those who break the law.

Read also Historical Evolution of Punishment and Eventual Use of “Houses of Correction” in America


            The utilitarian form of punishment seeks to punish the offenders in order to discourage or to deter them from any engagement in such offenses in the future. The utilitarian philosophy of punishment asserts the need for the use of the laws in order to maximize the happiness of its citizens. The philosophy is underpinned in the inconsistency between crime and happiness and the need to keep them at a minimum through the use of punishment as a mode of discouraging future involvement in criminal activities (Dubber & Hörnle, 2014). In addition, it is consequentialist in nature and is directed towards the maximization of the good for the society. As a result, the goal of the punishment is to reduce the evil associated with crime, while maximizing the good produced by the punishment.

Read also Is The Death Penalty A Valid Example Of Deterrence Theory, Based On Beccaria’s Theories Of Punishment?

            The utilitarian punishment philosophy can be classified into two specific rationales, the deterrence and rehabilitation. According to (Dubber & Hörnle, 2014) deterrence can be classified as either general or specific. The author points that specific deterrence is designed so as to disincline the offenders from committing the same offences in the future. This can occur in form of criminal prosecutions and public shaming by being a denominated felon as well as through other penalties. In contrast, general deterrence occurs in a form of a general public discouragement from engaging in a certain offence or offences, for example making public certain criminal proceeding involving notorious offences.

            The other form of utilitarian punishment is rehabilitation, which involves providing the offenders an opportunity to reform within the confines of the law. According to (Dubber & Hörnle, 2014) rehabilitation has been designed in order to instill the right values and attitude by encouraging respect for the institutions and self through a means that the offenders can lead a productive life.  The methods employed include treatment for disorders such as substance addiction, counseling, and other educational initiatives such as provision of training, knowledge, and skills that are designed to make the offenders productive and ready for the job market once they exit the rehabilitation program.

Read also Landmark Cases – Capital Punishment


            Incapacitation as the name suggests seeks to render the offenders incapable of committing crimes. According to (Welsh & Harris, 2010) incapacitation serves the simple purpose of restraining the offender from committing further crimes. It is based on the logic that during the time that an offender is under incapacitation, they are not able to commit crime in the society. The examples of the criminal justice department sentencing policies that have taken the form of incapacitation includes selective incapacitation and the notion of “three strikes and you are out” penalty, which are both forms of long incarcerations. The major feature of the approach is the concern to identify the offenders that are more likely to commit crimes in the future based on the risk and the likelihood of offending.

Read also Punishment Philosophy Paper

The Rationale that is Mostly Employed in the Criminal Justice System

The conception of the United States of punishment follows a combination of the three rationales of punishment. Retribution remains the widely accepted form of punishment in the country. When an offender is convicted of an offence, the sentence often involves in part at least a form of retribution. However, the country’s legal system widely uses the utilitarian form of punishments in the creation of parole, probation and other pretrial diversion programs. These forms of punishments have been designed to limit the punishments to the extent that is deemed necessary and proportional with the crime in order to protect the society. This is evident in the different forms of sentencing that are employed for different crimes, for example, short term jail for minor assaults and batter.

Should we Punish Children as Adults?

The 1990s saw an increase in the concerns that were attributed to the rising juvenile deliquescence in the country. According to (Myers, 2016) this period was characterized by a rise in juvenile crime rates and an increase in what the author terms as “juvenile predators”. As a result, a number of reforms in the juvenile justice system were undertaken in the country. The juvenile justice practitioners and policy makers developed a number of policies, procedures, and sanctions, which were meant to curb the increasing juvenile crimes by increasing the sentencing options, juvenile accountability, information sharing and public safety. This according to (Heilbrun et al., 2017) was to help the children and youths to undergo successful rehabilitation and prevent them from engaging in criminal activities in the future. However, increasing incidences of serious crimes among the children has increased debate on whether children should be punished as adults. It is of the position that children should not be punished as adult, but rather should be treated as juveniles since their actions are products of their developmental stages.

Read also Threat of Corporal Punishment And Juvenile Delinquency

The focus of this paper will be to examine whether juveniles should be punished as adults. The paper will critically examine the latest published academic journal articles. In order to achieve these goals, the published journal articles were searched using the keywords “juvenile justice”, “juvenile courts”, and “juvenile delinquency”. The search produced over 17,800 results which were then analyzed to ensure that only relevant articles related with the topic were selected. The articles were then examined to ensure only articles that were considered academic sources were used. This included examining the articles to ensure they were current, published, peer-reviewed and from authoritative sources like government bodies.

Read also Law Article Review – Juveniles in Court

The treatment of juveniles as adults is in itself not only wrong but negates the initial reasons that preceded the development of the juvenile justice system. The view of the juvenile delinquents in 1990s policy trends saw the development of the Get Tough Movement in order to facilitate incapacitation and deterrence. These policy changes would continue to develop and saw its expansion into the transfer of the juveniles into adult courts (Baker, Cleary, Pickett & Gertz, 2013). Also a number of policy measures and procedures were put in place by policy makers and practitioners in the criminal justice system owing to increased public outcry regarding the increase in juvenile crimes (Pealer, Terry & Adams, 2017). An example of such notable procedure has been highlighted in (Kurlychek, 2016) where the authors points that the juvenile justice courts have the ability to waive certain youths from the juvenile system to the adult system.

Read also Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Treatment – Final Project : Research Paper

Kurlychek (2016) asserts that the traditional discretionary waivers that were often witnessed in the juvenile courts have since been replaced by broader statutory exclusions and expanded prosecutorial waivers. The increased scope of these waivers tends to bar the increasing number of youths from enjoying the juvenile court benefits. Originally, the waiver was done based on the Supreme Court ruling sought to guarantee the juveniles the rights that adults enjoy, which were not available in the juvenile courts. Although the waivers would guarantee that juveniles enjoyed rights as defined in the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments, it posed potential risks to the juveniles.

Read also Using Delinquency Theories To Explain Delinquent Behavior Among Juveniles

            Similarly, a number of landmark cases and judicial interpretations have greatly altered the way juveniles are viewed in the criminal justice system in the United States. The increase in the advocacy and the desire to expand on the rights of the juvenile offenders led to the creation of the first juvenile court in Illinois in 1899 under the Illinois Juvenile Act of 1899. Steinberg (2013) in his study on the juvenile justice system has identified the various landmark cases that involved the Supreme Court decisions on the culpability of juveniles. In 1988, in Thomson v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court ruled that the development in contemporary standards meant that juveniles are not capable of acting with a degree of culpability that can justify ultimate penalty. In Roper v. Simmons Supreme Court opinion of 2005, the judges ruled that as it is known scientifically and among the parents, the youths lack maturity and have underdeveloped sense of responsibility. The 2010 Supreme Court decision involving Graham v. Florida ruled that it was unconstitutional for individuals under the age of 18 to be sentenced to life without parole. Finally, the Miller v. Alabama Supreme Court ruling of 2012 held that the states may not mandate life without parole for juvenile offenders even when such offenses involved homicide.

Read also Intake, Adjudication, and Disposition – Juvenile Justice Process Phrases

            In addition to the Supreme Court landmark decisions concerning juvenile offenders are the roles of public opinion in shaping the juvenile justice system. Artello, Hayes, Muschert & Spencer (2015) asserts that one of the biggest concerns regards the way the issues that affect the juveniles, their development and youth delinquency are understood in the neoliberal world. According to the authors, the perception of the neoliberal world is that of ubiquity of risks, and an increase in the trends and policy developments that prefer punitive measures towards the control and prevention of juvenile criminal behaviors. Owing to the vigilance towards risks, the public have increased their focus of risk-consciousness focus on the youths, thereby shaping the juvenile justice policy through their opinions.

Read also Bans on Executions of the Mentally Retarded and Juveniles – Most Significant Sanctions

Having examined the developments in the juvenile justice system, it is imperative that these developments be put into the juvenile offender context and examine whether such offenders warrant punishment as adult offenders. First, we should note that the founders of the juvenile courts not only envisioned the creation of a system of juvenile courts that would shield children from the harms of the adult courts, but also to offer punishment and advancement of the interests of the children (Mears et al., 2016). This means the real initial purpose for which juvenile courts were developed was to rehabilitate juveniles from committing crimes and not to be subjected to punitive measures as adults. According to the authors, in adult courts, the determination of guilt takes precedence, whereas the juvenile courts is guided under parens patriae or simple put as the parents of the nation. This supports the fact that recognized children as people who needed assistance and not punitive measures as those that adults receive in adult courts. In acting as parens patriae, the juvenile courts are supposed to provide a form of deterrence and diversion in order to reduce juvenile crimes and recidivism. These juvenile courts were supposed to admit children and youths in the interest of the public and the state, and on their behalf, offer corrective measures that were geared towards the rehabilitation of their behaviors.

Read also Sentencing Juveniles in Adult Courts – Sample Research Paper

In addition, the juvenile court waivers in the juvenile justice system have shifted the focus of the traditional juvenile system into a more punitive system raising fundamental questions. The one fundamental question that needs to be answered is, if really the creation of the juvenile courts was based on the idea that children are different from adults and that the adult prisons and jails are detrimental to them, then why put them under trial as adults? Would this not subject the juveniles to negative impacts? The first question is brad and can be answered by examining the real mission of the juvenile courts in the United States and the preceding landmark cases. Most of the Supreme Court decisions allowed for juvenile court waivers and other related juvenile rights were based on the rationale of increasing the scope of juvenile rights. On the impact of waivers, it meant that juvenile offenders would have to undergo trial in the adult courts, affording them to be punished as adults. It would also subject the juveniles to the public scrutiny as the cases moved to trial courts, making such punishments terse and causing negative impact on the juvenile offenders.

Read also Dealing With First-Time Offenders In The Juvenile System

            The support against subjecting punitive nature of measures against juvenile offenders is not only supported by the initial vision that saw the development of the juvenile policy and creation of the juvenile courts in the beginning 80s. Research has shown that public opinion greatly shapes the juvenile justice system trends. According to (Miller & Applegate, 2014) the policy developments in the juvenile justice system has been subject of public opinion. The authors further note that the public favor a host of progressive policies that are geared towards preventions, early intervention programs, and rehabilitation, rather than punishment. Given that the major goal of juvenile crime prevention is to protect the public and guarantee their safety, against the rising crime rates among the children and youths in the country, it can be concluded from that the public not only shows disregard of punitive measures but seems to regard preventive measures which research has shown to be more tenable and produces long-term positive outcomes. For instance, (Aizer & Doyle, 2015) highlights the negative relationship between the punitive measures on juveniles such as incarcerations on labor market and education. Juvenile incarceration has negative effects as it reduces their chances of completing their high school education and can as increase the likelihood of higher incarceration for violent crimes during their adulthood.

Read also Juvenile Blueprint Programs – Big Brothers Big Sisters of America

            The other major shortcoming of the punitive measures as a strategy in the prevention of the juvenile crimes is its disregard the role of the human body development among the juveniles in their roles in crimes and their criminal tendencies. According to (Monahan, Steinberg & Piquero, 2015) since the mid and late 90s, the advancement in human brain and body science has increased the available information on human growth and development. The authors point that children develop in a ways that are different and these have huge implications in their treatment in the juvenile justice system. Also, they point that children have unique processes of making their decisions compared to those of the adults, with a continuation in their brain development and maturation in mid-20s.

Read also Juvenile Cases That Have Made Great Contributions In Development of Juvenile Justice

            Cauffman, Shulman, Bechtold & Steinberg (2015) points that the recent scientific studies have improved the understanding that underpins the mature decision making. The most important finding in as it relates with the evolution of maturity among the children is the understanding that maturity involves a combination of factors such as the growth in cognitive ability, the ability to resist peer pressure, ability to consider the long-term consequences on one’s actions, and the ability to resist impulsive urges. These characteristics and competencies emerge and develop at various stages in the human development life cycle. The author further shows that among the children and youths in lack of complete cognitive development which hinders their ability to make rational decisions. Therefore punishing children and youths as adults would be punishing them for undergoing their development stages in life.

Read also Law: Reducing Juvenile Weapons Crimes – Youth Firearms Violence

            Moreover, many U.S Supreme Court decisions have highlighted the juvenile developmental processes in the majority opinion. According to (Cohen & Casey, 2014) the two major cases that have highlighted juvenile development processes are the Jackson v. Hobbs and the Miller v. Alabama. Miller was convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment without parole in a case where he and another teen burned a trailer after an altercation with an adult male who eventually died of smoke inhalation. In the other case, Jackson and three ther teens robbed a video store and in the process, one of the teens pulled his gun and killed the store clerk (pp. 63). The two cases involved male juveniles who were aged 14 years old at the time they committed their crimes. The ther cases where developmental processes of the teens have been highlighted include the Roper v. Simmons of 2005 and the Graham v. Florida of 2010 (Monahan, Steinberg & Piquero, 2015). All these cases made considerable references to the fact that children and youths have less capacity to make rational decisions and should not be punished as adults.

Read also Should Juveniles Be Sentenced To Life For Heinous Crimes?

            The shift from the traditional view of the juvenile justice system to the punitive one has been borne based on the thoughts that such a system would facilitate accountability, deterrence, and incapacitation.  However, research has shown that punitive measures on juvenile offenders is ineffective and does not discourage criminal tendencies among this group of population. According to (Myers, 2016) concerning general deterrence, new body of evidence has shown that the new and modified juvenile justice system transfer laws do not reduce juvenile crimes. The punitive measures adopted has yield n evidence that juveniles who are subjected to such treatment display a reduction in criminal tendencies once they reach their adulthood. Moreover, punishing children and youths may not yield any positive outcomes in future. The author points that children and youths are less oriented compared to adults and thus are less likely to examine the long-term consequences of their present behavior on their future criminal culpability.

Read also Recent Trends in Juvenile Delinquency

            Similar work on the effectiveness of punitive measures in transfer of children into adult courts has been highlighted in (Kurlychek, 2016). In his meta-analysis, the author found that at its best, the juvenile transfer into adult courts has null effects on the criminogenic tendencies and recidivism. This further alludes to the fact that more punitive measures similar to those of adults may not yield positive outcomes after all. Lehmann, Chiricos & Bales (2016) have also shown the negative impacts of legal and extralegal factors on the juveniles in the trial courts. The authors allude to the possibility of legal and extralegal factors interacting during sentencing with the conviction mode. Although research has shown that trial conviction has a moderating effect on the demographic and case characteristics of the defendant, on the sentence, the authors point that the role of trial in such a moderating has been found to be theoretically ambiguous. This means the trial can strengthen the positive effects of the aggravating factors and the negative effects of the mitigating factors. This has a negative impact with the likelihood of production of disparities in sentencing according to such factors.

Read also Preventing Juvenile Crime Through Social Process Theories

            Moreover, the transfer of juveniles through juvenile court waivers can aggravate the nature of sentencing that such children receive in court and raises concerns regarding the ability of such juveniles in making their testimonies. Although juvenile courts have been disparaged with the kind of treatment that juveniles receive, the transfer of juveniles into the adult courts may not yield the expected treatments on the juveniles. According to (Lehmann, Chiricos & Bales, 2017) the children and youth who are transferred to trial courts are not more likely than the adult offenders to receive prison sentences and were often more likely to receive longer terms in jails when compared t adults aged 60 years or older. Those transferred also received significantly longer prison sentences compared to young adults aged 18 year or older. This reiterates the fact that putting juvenile offenders even under trial in pretext of guaranteeing them their individual rights would subject them to much harsher sentencing treatments.

Read also Has The Juvenile Court Outlived its Usefulness?

            Although the proponents f the punishments f adults highlight the need to adopt more stringent measures to curb the rising crime among the children and the youth, it is evident from the research that the s-called tough measures and trial court judgments indeed never reduce recidivism. Neither do they reduce the tendencies to engage in criminal activities among the children and the youths. It is important that a consensus be established between the two pints of view in order to have more plausible forms of juvenile punishment. It is recommended that a shift in juvenile policy be considered in order to increase rehabilitative efforts among the juvenile offenders. Rather than send juvenile offenders to trial courts, rehabilitation centers, complete with professional counselors be established. This is based on the fact that the criminal choices among the juveniles are a product of developmental factors and that they are more likely to reform than adults (Scott, Grisso, Levick, & Steinberg, 2015).            

Read also Recidivism of Juvenile Sex Offenders – Research Proposal

Finally, it is recommended that developmentally-based sentencing framework be adopted in order to ensure that juvenile cases that proceed to trial take into consideration the effect of developmental factors so as to ensure that such children receive punishments that are proportionate to their age and not severe compared to those that adults receive.  According to (Scott, Grisso, Levick, & Steinberg, 2015) the Supreme Court decisions have reiterated that it severe sentences in juvenile criminal trials are not crime specific but applies across all types of offenses committed by the offenders. In line with the Supreme Court decision in Graham v. Florida and in Miller v. Alabama, commensurate sentences should ensure juveniles receive sentences that are not more severe compared to those of adult offenders.

Marketing Assistant Job Description

Job overview

This marketing assistant position at Deja’ Vu, a non-alcoholic beverages company that is an Equal Employment Opportunity employer, is for a creative and team-oriented person. The successful candidate will help in developing our marketing department by performing primary and administrative duties. This will involve organization and implementation of various marketing projects, performing various administrative duties in the department and market research.

Read also Job Description – Customer Service Call Center Supervisor

The employee for this fulltime position with basic 40-hour weeks will start work on January 5, 2019. The annual pay is USD 80,000 and benefits include insurance and company stocks. The position involves working in the office and in the field, and there are also opportunities to work at home.

Read also How To Write Accurate and Effective Job Position Descriptions

Duties and responsibilities

The duties of the marketing assistant include:

  • Assisting organize and implement marketing campaigns.
  • Assisting the department’s goals achievement for the overall growth of the company.
  • Assisting development of marketing strategies.

Read also Job Analysis and Job Description – Retail Sales Representative And End Manager Positions

The responsibilities of the marketing assistant are:

  • Perform marketing administrative tasks by coordinating the activities of the department for efficient functionality.
  • Assist in organizing various marketing projects.
  • Conduct market research and analyze market data.
  • Update company inventories and databases with relevant marketing data, including financial and statistical data.
  • Assist organizing and implementing traditional and digital marketing campaigns.
  • Manage and frequently update Deja’ Vu’s website and social media accounts
  • Publish and distribute the company’s marketing literature.
  • Develop good relationships with and among company stakeholders.


  • Bachelor degree in marketing, business or relevant field.
  • Excellent communication and people skills.
  • Office administration skills and knowledge.
  • Excellent skills and knowledge of Microsoft Office Suite, marketing software and databases.
  • Market research knowledge and experience. 
  • Experience working in a busy marketing department.
  • Good organization skills that respect time and are customer focused.

Special considerations

  • Deja’ Vu is an Equal Employment Opportunity employer.
  • This job description is not a contract of employment between the employee and the company. The company may exercise its employment-at-will rights at any time.

Determining duties and qualifications

In determining the duties and qualifications, marketing activities of a small to medium sized company were considered. It is appreciated as an assistant, the employee will not be the main decision-maker in the department. However, to ensure the position is challenging and satisfying, some decision-making and problem-solving in administrative and research duties have been allocated.

That it is a small company means the marketing assistant will be involved in all spheres across the department including strategy formulation. The qualifications and experience gained from the position offers the employee room for personal and professional growth within the company. The employment laws considered in drawing up the job description are Equal Employment Opportunity, Equal Pay Act and Fair Labor Standards Act.

New Policy on the Death Penalty for Minors – Roper v. Simmons

Historical Tradition Changes: New Policy on the Death Penalty for Minors

Read the following article in the Kaplan Library. (2009). Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Simmons: certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri. Supreme Court Cases: The Twenty-first Century (2000 – Present), 1–5.

After you have read the article, write a 3–5 page summary of the article addressing the questions below:

  • In Roper v. Simmons, what was basis of the U.S. Supreme Courts’ opinion?
  • What was the dissenting opinion?
  • What policy and treatment implications can you envision as a result of this decision?
  • Do you believe that juveniles should be put to death? Why, or why not?

Read also Sentencing Juveniles in Adult Courts – Sample Research Paper

Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Simmons: certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri. Supreme Court Cases – Article Summary

The Roper v. Simmons Supreme Court Ruling

            The Roper v. Simmons Supreme Court ruling of 2005 has become one of the most landmark cases concerning juvenile culpability in heinous acts that attract capital punishment. Simmons was a 17 year old when together with other three teenagers planned and committed capital murder. When he turned 18, he was convicted and sentenced to death (Miller & Beare, 2017). Through his attorney, he made appeal and subsequent petitions for state and federal post conviction relief, which were denied. However, the Supreme Court agreed with Simmons petition that in the in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 ruling, it was established that the execution of a juvenile aged under 18 years was prohibited by the constitution.

Read also Bans on Executions of the Mentally Retarded and Juveniles – Most Significant Sanctions

The Basis of the Supreme Court Ruling

The basis for the Supreme Court ruling in the Roper v. Simmons was the Eighth and the Fourteenth Amendments. Initially, the Missouri Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, had determined that the eighth Amendment that is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment bars the execution of the mentally retarded person. Based on these constitutional underpinnings and the developments in the societal traditions and decency, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments prohibits the execution of juveniles who committed their crimes when aged 18.

Read also Using Delinquency Theories To Explain Delinquent Behavior Among Juveniles

The Dissenting Opinion

            When the Supreme Court of the United States made a consideration of the death penalty that were being applied to crimes that are committed by persons aged under 18 years in Roper v. Simmons, it held that persons aged between 16 and 18 years may not be executed for heinous crimes. According to (Benekos & Merlo, 2016) during the hearing, the court rule 5-4 that the evolution of decency preceded the application of capital punishment among the offenders who were aged under 18 when their crimes were committed. However, during the court’s ruling, Justice Scalia and Justice O’Connor delivered the dissenting opinions. According to (Scott, 2005) in her dissenting opinion, Justice O’Connor expressed her concerns regarding the establishments of categorical rules that excluded the execution of juvenile justice offenders. Although she acknowledged the majority rules that juveniles are less mature as adults, she challenged the majority to prove that there was a growth in the society’s rejection in capital punishments for juveniles. While pointing that the evidence was weak in the case, she asserted that many state legislatures still allowed capital punishments among persons aged under 17 years.

            In her dissent that joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia pointed that the opinions from the majority judges that there was a development in national consensus regarding juvenile death penalty over the past 15 years, was based on “flimsiest reasons”. He challenged the consensus referred in the court’s opinion that the national consensus had developed when only less than 50% of the states had prohibited juvenile capital punishment (Scott, 2005). He pointed that since the Stamford ruling, only 4 states had established minimum age of 16 through ballot initiatives or statutes.

The Envisioned policy and Treatment Implications Owing to the Decision

            In the previous paper, it was pointed that juvenile offenders should be given a right to enjoy their constitutional rights just like adult offenders. This involved being allowed to stand trial as these would give them the opportunity to be granted such rights. Roper v. Simmons ruling is one such example a trial that allowed the juvenile offenders to be granted rights based on their developmental stage. However, the rejection of capital punishments among juveniles offenders offers policy and treatment implications.

            The policy implication that can be envisioned owing to the landmark decision in Roper v. Simmons is the need for the development of legislative policies that are oriented towards reforms. The court rulings that allowed the juvenile offenders the right of jurisdictional waiver have led to what Liles & Moak (2014) have termed as “adultification” of the juvenile courts. The policy implications of these changing rulings affecting the juveniles is the need for change in the focus of juvenile courts to ensure the juvenile courts develop regulations that govern juvenile penalties. Given the increasing changes that grant juvenile offenders rights that adult offenders enjoy, it is imperative that juvenile courts have comprehensive laws that govern juvenile penalties. In regard with treatment, the Roper v. Simmons ruling asserted that juvenile offenders are not culpable owing to their developmental stage. This implies that there is need for increased focus on rehabilitative treatment efforts as a better form of reducing juvenile offences.

Should Juveniles be put to Death?

It is of the opinion that juvenile offenders should not be subjected to capital punishment. The human developmental theory asserts that human brain and body undergo development in stages. One of the stages in human development that is common with risk-taking acts is the adolescent stage.

Read also Should Juveniles Be Sentenced To Life For Heinous Crimes?

According to (Steinberg, 2013) the risk-taking acts that occur during adolescent stage are impulsive and occur without full consideration. Subjecting such juveniles to capital punishment due to their developmental influence is not morally plausible. Similarly, subjecting a younger juvenile who may not be an adolescent to capital punishment would be morally wrong since they are yet to develop the capacity to make objective and rational decisions.

Law Article Review – Juveniles in Court

Soulier, M., & Scott, C. (2010). Juveniles in Court. Harvard Review of Psychiatry18(6), 317-325.

The Author’s Main Points Regarding Abolishing the Juvenile Courts

Soulier & Scott (2010) begin their article by providing a historical development of the juvenile justice system in the United States, from the initial refuge centers or reformatories to the modern juvenile courts. The author pints that the refuge centers were accused from negligence, corruption and general discrimination of the juveniles from minority groups. These factors and the new moral understanding that had developed led to the creation of the first juvenile court in Illinois later in other states.  However, the authors disparage these juvenile courts citing numerous reasons.

Read also Sentencing Juveniles in Adult Courts – Sample Research Paper

One of the main points outlined by the author as the reason that the juvenile courts must be abolished is that they are not different from the adult criminal courts. Initially, the juvenile criminal justice system was modeled to be rehabilitative in nature (Soulier & Scott, 2010). However, through a series of several Supreme Court decisions juvenile offenders have been granted the rights that are accorded to the adults in the adult criminal justice system. For example, the author asserts the Kent vs. United States, which allowed the juvenile to be given waiver and allowed to stand trial just like an adult in the standard adult criminal court (pp. 320). This has dissuaded the juvenile courts from serving their core rehabilitative function but rather appear now to be too dissimilar to the standard adult criminal courts.

Read also Using Delinquency Theories To Explain Delinquent Behavior Among Juveniles

In addition to the continued criminalization of the juvenile courts, the other reason why the authors assert the need for abolishment of the juvenile courts is that the juvenile courts offer little in the protection of the rights of the juvenile offenders. The authors point that the juvenile court judges enjoyed broad discretions that went against the fundamental rights of accused like the one enjoyed by adult offenders, for instance the detention.

In addition, the juvenile courts should be abolished according to the authors, since the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act enacted by the Congress, which established the Office of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preventions. This office provided federal funds to the states that upheld the deinstitutionalization of status of the juvenile offenders and the separation of adult and juvenile offenders even when in the juveniles are placed in adult jails. The removal of detention due to truancy and the separation of juvenile and adult offenders as covered under the act paves way for the abolishment of the juvenile courts. 

Read also Bans on Executions of the Mentally Retarded and Juveniles – Most Significant Sanctions

Strengths and Weakness of the Authors’ Arguments

            The major strength in the arguments provided by the authors is that juvenile courts do not protect the rights of the juveniles. According to (Hile, 2009) the failure of the juvenile courts to protect the rights of the juveniles by acting as a court and at the same time as the social service make its inefficient in its operations. In addition, the fact that the Supreme Court rulings have made several rulings that have granted the juveniles the rights to enjoy rights as do adult criminals makes the juvenile courts inefficient and need to be abolished (Soulier & Scott, 2010). The other strength in the author’s argument is that the juvenile courts no longer serve under their initial model of rehabilitation but rather work on the broad discretions granted to the juvenile court judges, which subjects juveniles to gross violations such as detention without trial for as long as until they reach the ages of 21.

Read also Should Juveniles Be Sentenced To Life For Heinous Crimes?

            Although the authors provide strong arguments in favor of the closure of the juvenile courts, some of the arguments are weak. For instance, the authors points to the heightened rights which have been determined by the Supreme Court having enhanced the rights of the juveniles yet they point that they are not afforded appropriate legal protections.  The authors even provide an example of the lack of jury trial and detention without trial, which interestingly they corroborate through Supreme Court rulings that have allowed the juveniles the right to jury trial and detention based on specific considerations such as determined by the juvenile court such as a threat to self or to the community (pp. 320).

Reasons in Support of the Ideas of the Authors’

            Although it is imperative that the juvenile offenders be given some form of punishment it should be observed that just like among the adult offenders, the punishment must be proportional to the offence and with the realization that the juvenile crimes are a product of their developmental factors. According to (Feld, 2018), the juvenile court decisions such as risk assessments that inform juvenile detention decisions have been found to be inferior with the actuarial risks assessment. According to the authors, Schall vs. Martin that held that upheld New York preventive detention have been criticised by researchers. The authors assert the clinical and statistical prediction comparisons have shown that actuarial risks assessment instruments are superior over professional judgments (421). In addition, (Bowman, 2018) found that there was no evidence which shows that the juvenile courts have directly led to reduced juvenile delinquency and rates of recidivism, asserting the need to abolish it.

What the Article Contributes to the Field of Criminal Justice and its Implications

            The article provides timely reminder to the lawmakers and practitioners in the criminal justice system that juvenile criminal offenders deserve equal treatment as the adult criminal offenders.  The article provides immense information on the need for impartial and equal treatment of the juvenile criminal offenders on the basis of the Eight Amendment.

            If and when the suggestions provided in the article are followed, it means that the society must determine other alternative measures of handling juvenile criminal offenders. Since the article proposes the juvenile courts to be abolished while pointing towards the success of rehabilitation efforts in reduction of recidivism, it would mean that the juvenile justice department must shift its focus on rehabilitation efforts, while their juvenile criminal judgments must ensure the preservation of the juvenile offender rights.

Article Critique – A Randomized Controlled Trial Of The Effects Of Nursing Care Based On Watson’s Theory Of Human Caring On Distress, Self-Efficacy And Adjustment In Infertile Women

This paper critiqued article “A Randomized Controlled Trial Of The Effects Of Nursing Care Based On Watson’s Theory Of Human Caring On Distress, Self-Efficacy And Adjustment In Infertile Women.” By Ilkay, et al., (2013). The aims of this article were to evaluate the effects of nursing care Based on the theory of human caring on distress caused by infertility, perceived self-efficacy and adjustment levels

  • Does the research report clearly describe a theoretical or conceptual framework to guide the study? If yes, complete questions 2 and 3


  • Evaluate whether the report adequately describe the link between the theory/CF and the research study?

The article clearly outlined the connection between the theory the research in the sense, the theory emphasized the need understand that patients should not be treated as objects that can be fixed by repair. The theory focuses on nursing paradigms and human (Ilkay, et al., 2013). The conceptual framework of Watson’s theory is the process infertile patients goes through while undergoing treatment. These processes include caring-healing modalities, caring occasions, caring moments, the transpersonal caring and caritas process. The article emphasized the benefits associated with the theory of human caring on nursing care. According to this article, the application of the concept of theory of human caring in nursing practice brings more efficiency and awareness, thus improving care outcome. Therefore, the link between Watson theory of human caring and this article was the improvement of the care outcome

  • What purpose does the theory serve in the study (e.g., development of instruments, identification of independent and/or dependent variables, Other, None?).

The Watson’s Theory of Human Caring served as a development of instrument in this study because the author planned nursing care based on this theory. For instance, the study was designed to be executed in six sessions in the infertility treatment process and each of the session was designed in accordance with the improvement process selected from the Watson’s Theory of Human Caring. The first phase of the study was the internalization and examination of the Watson’s Theory of Human Caring prior to adapting and putting it into the practice. The study includeed the 10 caritas processes:

  • Altruistic values and loving kindness
  • Faith, hope and honor
  • Being sensitive to self and other
  • Helping, trusting, caring relationship
  • Promoting and accepting feelings
  • Problem-solving methods
  • Teaching and learning
  • Creating a healing environment
  • assisting with human needs
  • Openness to mystery and allowing miracles.
  • Does the researcher clearly tie the findings of the study back to the framework at the end of the report?

At the end of the article, the author clearly tied the findings of the study back to the frame work by stating that it was first time Watson’s Theory of Human Caring was used in the provision of nursing care to women with infertility in randomized controlled trials. The finding showed a positive effect on the adjustment to infertility in women, perceived infertility self-efficacy and distress. This is clear indication that planning nursing care in according with the Watson’s Theory of Human Caring is very effective.

Ethical Considerations

            Nursing research like any other scientific research should be done in accordance with ethical guidelines. These ethical guidelines provide a framework on how data should be collected. In research that involves human subjects such as the article under study, it is important that data collection seeks to protect rather than harm the study participants (Montalvo & Larson, 2014). In the article, (Arslan-Özkan, Okumuş & Buldukoğlu, 2013) conducted research among women and there was no physical harm subjected to the respondents. Although the researchers did not harm the research participants, the article does not expressly outline any steps that were taken to remove or prevent harm or minimize discomfort.

            The study sought to implement and investigate the effect of Watson’s Theory of Caring among infertile women in Turkey. The benefits of the study outweigh the costs and any potential risks or discomfort to the research participants. Given that the authors point that there was lack of clear framework of application of Watson’s caring theory in treatment of infertile women, the potential benefits of the study are great (Arslan-Özkan, Okumuş & Buldukoğlu, 2013). In addition, the authors assert that infertility affects close to10-15% of the population (pp. 1802). This outlines the importance of the study against the potential risks, discomfort and costs.

            The authors pointed that informed consent was sought from the research participants before the research, through the informed consent form. However, there was no clear description on how the informed consent was sought from the research participants. The research was approved by the university research ethics committee and the necessary corporate approvals were obtained.

Method of Data Collection

            The research method that was employed in data collection was interviews. According to the authors, the demographic data varied as the study sample included women aged between 1& 45 (Arslan-Özkan, Okumuş & Buldukoğlu, 2013). In order to ensure that the appropriate data was collected, the researchers individualized the interviews in order to meet the personal needs of the participants. The interviews were appropriately employed based on how they were designed and administered by the researchers. The data that was collected included the participant data on fertility, sociodemographic characteristics, and data on how the participants perceived their self-efficacy.             The researchers provided information that the study collected its data from two groups, the control and the treatment group. The data was collected through structured interviews that were administered by trained nurses in the university infertility centre.  In the research, the authors point that the interviewer or the investigator was the intervention provider, who are the RNs in the infertility centre. In order to ensure the RNs had adequate preparation and training, the researchers selected them based on the attributes that are described in Watson’s caring theory, which included empathy, listening, touching, motivation, encouragement, empowerment, and positive thinking among other attributes. The data that was being collected was qualitative and the approach employed by the researchers was adequate and appropriate.

Dimensional Analysis – Why Did The Dinosaurs Disappear?

There are several theories that have attempted to explained the extinction of dinosaurs in the past and at the present. However, three of the theories have been consistent: asteroid impact theory, marine regression and habitat regression, and massive eruptions of flood basalt. Analysis of these three theories showed that they are mutually exclusive and they range from very short to very long-term in both duration and effect (Elewa, 2012). The asteroid impact theory is the most catastrophic of all the three theories and it argues that asteroid of 10-km (6-mi) struck the earth ejecting a plume that reaches the atmosphere and blocked the rays of the sun from reaching the earth surface. As a result, the photosynthesis process was curtailed leading to the death of many plant and herbivores and subsequently the carnivores.

            The second theory is marine regression and habitat fragmentation that have taken place over a longer interval of time probably from tens to hundreds of thousands of years. In this case the marine regression is described as a process of draining of epicontinental seas (Archibald, 2012). The theory estimated that during this period 29 million square km (11.2 million square mi) of land were exposed. This led to the extinction of marine life including the dinosaurs.

            The third theory is the massive eruption of flood basalt, which occurred in the Indian subcontinent over an extended period of time as compared to marine regression. The theory approximate that the volume of the material that erupted during this period was enough to cover both Alaska and Texas to a depth of 610 m (200 ft) (Archibald, 2012). The cause of massive eruptions have not been studied well, but many research have relate these events with volcanism.

Scientific methodology

            Currently, there are two scientific methodology that is used to explained the extinction of dinosaurs: The ‘Gradualist’ Model and the ‘Catastrophist’ Models. The gradualist model relies on the gradual ecosystem evolution model with the assumption that as the number of mammals increases, the number of dinosaurs declined until they disappear altogether (Elewa, 2012). It involves the analysis of the fossil records and ecological events to establish the changes in the existence of the species. On the other hand, the catastrophist model relies on the extraterrestrial scenarios that causes huge impact on the earth surface. It involves the analysis of certain elements that are associated with comet such as the isotopic changes in C and O and presences of chondrites. It has been also explained through the analysis of abrupt shift in pollen ratios.