Criminology

Lombroso was one of the early classical and the positive school, who believe in Darwinism and other theory of the evolution, and we can see his ideas and theory of criminality focus on a certain group of individuals in which he described as ‘inferior’ according to him this is a group of people who tend or expose to commit more crimes. This theoretical framework for so many years has led many criminologists to establish another class of individual as ‘superior’, but this article or the study has demonstrated no evidence of any sign of aggression and violence associated with any biological or genetic effect.

On the Introduction Mill expressed his opinion on the exchange of ideas, even though the other party arguments may prove to be insensitive or baseless, therefore no opinion is superior because in one point or another it may be confronted to another set of ideas and it can be revised or debated. Therefore, the ideas of an open dialogue is something that Mill was advocating, and as the saying goes ‘enlightenment comes when ideas collide’ and this is a fundamental to our democracy, our public or private school this ideas is one of the pillar if not in the center of our democracy.

The article also talks about the Miseducation of criminologists went on explaining that certain criminologist holds liberal views as related to a crime which definitely reject biological theory, research has found that several unfair practices within the government and the criminal justice system were to blame for the certain cause of crime, such as unfair economic system where the wealth is not fairly distributed, lack of employment and most importantly profiling criminal justice system.

Another researcher also regardless of their political affiliation in the same article believe that ‘a lack of supervision, poor discipline practices and an unstable family life’ are also contributing factor as related to causation of crime. the article recognized the certain ideas especially in criminology has been label as ‘dangerous’ and severely criticized, the article mention the Darwin evolution theory, and the universe and all form of life being created by God, the article showed that some of the theory were meant to be offensive to a particular group of people or religion in this scenario toward the religion who believe completely the opposite.

The discussion part of the article talks more about the implications for Criminal Justice Education, it was noted that Criminal justice student in many cases have not been properly trained in biological or genetic sciences, one of the reason why student find themselves in a difficult position trying to understand the basic concepts of biological and how they can relate to a crime. Many student spending times learning themselves, it is important to note that the absence of biology concepts in the criminology field and the lack of training program available in criminology programs, makes many students who sincerely have the interest in biological concepts theory to moving to another discipline such as ‘psychology’.

In conclusion, I believe that there is not any bio-sociological method that can prove with accuracy the future or a pattern that an individual life course will take as related of engaging in a deviant behavior or criminality. But I believe rather than talking about predetermining method to predict crime, we need to consider certain factor and motivation in the life of the individual such as lack of employment, poverty and motivation such as religion, racial profiling, bitterness, angriness to the society all of these factors make this individual an eligible to commit crime, but since other people have low-self-control and can adapt to any situation therefore I do not think bio-sociology to be an accurate theory of defining and solving a crime commission. As far as the 3 questions; who can predict the future of 3 babies and tell with accuracy which one is going to be a lawyer, President and a thief? There is not such information in anybody DNA. I do no believe in socio-bio super-predator.

One main person involved was Susan Atkins an intelligent woman twisted by the ideas of Manson. She stabbed Sharon Tate, a pregnant actress, sixteen times, Sharon begged for mercy and Susan Atkins told her “there would be no compassion for her or her unborn bar, and after tasting the victim’s blood she used the blood to write the word “pig” on the front door and left. After she admitted to stabbing the pregnant actress in her 1971 court trial, she was sentenced to the death penalty. BUT due to the Supreme Court decision in 1972 of abolishing the death penalty, Atkins was now In prison for life with POSSIBLE PAROLE!

She Is now on the brink of death and has cost the state of California over 1. 4 million dollars alone in medical costs That’s doesn’t even include the 3. 5 million dollars it has took to care for her in prison for almost forty years! In total, this adds up to 5 million dollars The cost to keep the death penalty in California Is ninety million dollars. Right now California has 3,300 people in for a life sentence, this only adds up to the seventy five million dollars right now. But riddle me this with crime rates only moving up in these financially bad times do you want to run the risk of putting more in life in Jail? The costs here say.

If we add one hundred people a year to the life In prison list It will only take seven years for the price of life penalties to be higher than the death penalty price! Now some people believe that sometimes the person that was accused didn’t even commit the crime and that that person is being killed for no reason, but with modern technology today there Is a very unlikely chance of mixing a person up with the convict. One of the easiest ways to find out If the defendant Is the killer Is by using DNA testing to see if their DNA matches the convicted person, also besides DNA routs can use finger prints to identify the killer.

Now even the person convicted isn’t the killer there has been in the last few years a average waiting time on death row of 12 and 1/2 years with some men walling up to 25 years, that give the defendant and the government more than enough time to review the case and look for new evidence!!! But enough with costs of the death penalty, what is your moral view. People view the death penalty in many ways, some for it and others against it. But what It takes for ones opinion to be changed Is the death of someone you know or are Emily members with. Most seek revenge and want that person to die and experience what they did to the victim.

Now what would you want a the killer of you dad or you mom, maybe you sister or brother to get? Life in prison or the death penalty. The murderer should have to face what their victim did! Now what do you really want? During life prison the prisoners can get a chance to have a education In prisons While we are paying for college and schooling they are getting a free education that 1 OFF we pa Rebuttal The plan proposed by the affirmative side will not work! While we are paying for allege and schooling prisoners can be getting a free education that we pay for with our tax!

For the people locked up for life in prison. It’s a university of crime where prisoners are schooled to be “better” criminals. The taxpayers pay the tuition. It costs more than a Harvard education. Prison is the breeding ground for the worst social evils. Remember that 35 out of the 50 states still support capital punishment! That is more than 70% of the states, that dost even include the U. S. Government that also supports capital punishment. Ohio also uses the death penalty. Also more than 62% f Americans still support the death penalty. That is way more than half!

It also comes down to the view of the watcher, some people that don’t support the death penalty haven’t gotten to feel what it is like to have a brother or parent, child or friend killed. Many peoples view change when they are asked, ” If someone you loved was murdered, would you still want them to have life in prison or do them deserve what they did? “. Many people are hit hard by this question, but what would you want? To know that the murderer that killed a loved one gets the same thing that they did to the victim? Or to see them in prison possibly getting an education with our tax money!

With DNA testing and the new advancements in forensics there is almost no chance that the accused is really not the killer. Some killers out there have killed seven people or more, and you really want them to get away with it? Than this is not the America our founding father based it on! People deserve the right to know that they don’t have to go to bed worrying that the murderer that killed there loved one is out there not getting what they deserve! Just like in the courts of King Hamburg, The convicted deserves the eye for an eye tooth for a tooth treatment.

The idea of abolishing the death penalty is corrupt and will ruin the system, many say that the death penalty cost more than life in prison, but if all the people on death row are put in for life in prison within 10 years the death penalty cost will look tiny compared to the price of life in prison. .Sam and Andrew are wrong! If we let people like them take control of society who knows? Maybe gay marriage will be legalized and a women can go and abort a baby, as if it is Just a regular part of their daily routine! Getting rid of the death penalty will ruin society!

There are a majority of minorities in the U. S. Prisons because of lack of education, low or falling wages, and low parental or family guidance, parents being incarcerated as they were child and poor conditions after they have been released from Jail or prison. These are the top few reasons for the large numbers of minorities in the prison population. Many have disagreed on these findings, but three researchers at Princeton University have concluded that these are the primary causes with the high population of minorities in the U.

S. Prisons and Jails. According to Bruce Western, Meredith Clambake and Jake Responded during the asses through asses at least two- thirds of the population of criminals were placed in state or federal prisons for a felony conviction with a sentence of a year or maybe even longer depending on the crimes the inmates have committed. Between these years the rate in population averaged about one hundred to one hundred thousand of the U. S. Population to 470 prisoners per the population of one hundred thousand in 2001. The gap continued to grow between the rich and poor and had affected the admission rate because of he increasing crime offenses being committed among the low income men”. Jacobs & Helms 1996)(Greenberg & Western 2001). When Western and his colleagues continued their work they found out that in 2009 the ratios for the minorities against Caucasians was sufficiently much higher than average. African- Americans were almost seven times higher than that of the Caucasian males. (4,749 African-Americans v. 708 Caucasians). The ratio of Hipics compared to Caucasians was more than 2. 5 times higher (1,822 Hipic males v. 08 Caucasian males). The female ratios are much lower than the males but are still found in the population of minorities housed in the Jails and prisons throughout the United States. The numbers for the African-American females rated 3. 5 times higher than the Caucasian females housed in the prison population. (333 African-Americans v. 91 Caucasian females) and the Hipic females are 1. 5 times higher than the Caucasian females within the general prison population. (142 Hipic females v. 91 Caucasian females). These numbers are calculated by per 100,000 general population throughout the states Jails and prisons in the United States.

The next stages of their research inducted was of the different labor markets or employment status of the minorities throughout the general population housed in the Jails and prisons throughout the United States. The labor markets have a big influence on the high rate of imprisonment in two ways: the dramatically falling of their wages and Job opportunities and this increases the crime offenses and rates at the bottom of the economic ladder and this ends up generating the higher arrest rates, convictions and prison admissions throughout the United States. Western & Petit 2001) When this happened in the asses through the asses most African Americans turned to rug dealing and other crimes to compensate for the loss in income and Job opportunities. Western and Petit observed with their research that males of both ethnicities that had stable sector Jobs where the work is consistent, routine and monitored often commit less crimes compared to those of the secondary labor market where employment is irregular all the time and isn’t reliable.

When the wages and employment rates are low it sometimes leads to crime indirectly by undermining the bonds between family members and neighbors. During the years 1967 through 1998 youth homicides were weakly related to income inequality and reliably related only to unemployment rates among Caucasians but not for the African Americans. Messier, Rarefaction and McMillan (2001) When Western conducted ethnographic research he has identified entrepreneurial gangs as the key sources of economic opportunities for the young males throughout the urban communities characterized by the chronically high rates of unemployment.

One of Westerns colleagues Bourgeois in 1996 conducted research that the Hipic drug gangs view the sales and distribution of illegal drugs to help the depleted economic opportunities in their inner cities in which they live. With Western and his colleagues this can be stated that the evidence of the young men in the poor urban neighborhoods resorted to drug dealing and other crimes such as rape, robbery, homicide , murder and other such crimes to help compensate the funding they have lost due to the low labor markets of the asses.

With the conclusion of this information Western and his colleagues found out that due to lack of Job opportunities the inmates often resorted to other means of getting income that are most of the time found in either poorly stricken neighborhoods that don’t have a lot of Jobs for the offenders or due to the inmates arrest history that prevents them from being hired or rehired in Jobs they had obtain before they were placed into the system.

The next part of Western and his fellow colleague’s research was that they conducted several theories whether or not parental or family guidance or influence had anything to do with the high imprisonment rates of the minorities that are placed into the Jails or prisons throughout the United States. When Western and his colleagues were conducting their research they had done a survey on several of the minority inmates that either had single parents or both parents at home with them before being incarcerated.

With Western findings he also stated that “when there are families with two parents they can monitor their children’s activities and help keep them from straying toward the peer networks that often lead to crimes for delinquency. Families that have only one parent often struggle with the falling wages and employment rates and their children often end up committing crimes with high levels of violence to help their parents make amends for their loss of income and they also didn’t have that parent guidance or supervision to help them from straying towards the crime offenses. “

Western and his colleagues also conducted more research in this topic on whether the parents being incarcerated had anything to do with this high number of minorities being in the prisons or Jails throughout the United States. Their findings were supported by the findings of other researchers studying the same topic. In 1995 researcher Nancy G. La Veggie and her colleagues of the Urban Institute Justice Policy Center did a study on thirty-six children of incarcerated parents and found that the results of the parents being incarcerated often caused chronic sleeplessness, difficulties concentrating and high rates of depression.

One other study that was conducted during this time being showed sixteen percent of children with parents behind bars often developed temporary school phobias that would lead to the children not willing to attend school for six or more weeks following their parents being place into Jail or prison. The children also had a tendency of developing emotional responses that would eventually build and develop into long-term reactive behaviors, coping patterns and possibly even criminal activity.

When Nancy and her colleagues finished their research they were able to determine that with at least one aren’t being incarcerated presents a unique factor for the children of the age of 10 or lower made them have anti-social or delinquent behaviors that would lead them to eventually committing crimes and being placed into Jails and prisons. So with this research it shows the repeating factors that some kids end up eventually following their parent’s footsteps and will be eventually placed into the system.

They also showed us that it is a never ending cycle starting with the parents and eventually going to the children. These are why Western and his colleagues believed that with owe parental control or guidance played a huge factor. According to the 1997 survey conducted of the inmates housed in the state and federal prisons and Jails throughout the United States. Western and his colleagues found out that on average the inmates averaged less than eleven years of schooling compared to more than the thirteen years of schooling among the men under the age of forty in normal everyday society. Western ; Petit 2005). Most of the correctional facilities find out that the imprisonment rate for African Americans is seven times higher than those of the Caucasians. With this being said African American and Caucasian high school dropouts are five times more than likely to go to prison or Jail at a year’s time compared to the men from both ethnicities that have completed school. Due to the combination of racial and affects the young African American male dropout more than the Caucasian male dropout.

Western & Petit estimated that one in six African American dropouts was incarcerated in state and federal prisons each year starting in the asses. In 2001 one percent of college educated African Americans were incarcerated in prisons throughout the United States. By 2008 Western and his colleague’s surveys read that thirty-five percent of African-American children between the grades seventh through twelfth have been suspended or expelled at some point throughout their schooling careers compared to the twenty percent of Hipics and the fifteen percent of Caucasian men.

With the increasing crime rates in the poor urban neighborhoods provides the explanation that the rising rates of incarceration affected the young minority men and women that had little to no schooling at all which is why there are so many minorities in the orisons or Jails throughout the United States. The effects of incarceration on the life chances of inmates are profoundly detrimental.

According to some sociologists, lower status groups have higher crime rates because they do not have access to legitimate means of achieving. This view is supported by sociologists such as Cohen, Cloward and Ohlin who believe members of the lower classes commit crime because they are not given the same opportunities to achieve as other members of society. However, this view could be disputed, as it is by sociologists such as Miller and Murray who believe other factors are involved such as the focal concerns.

This essay will assess the extent to which lower status groups commit crime because they are denied access to the legitimate means of achieving success. According to Cohen, lower class boys have the same success goals as the rest of society but have no opportunity to enjoy these goals. He believes that the lack of opportunity here is because of their educational failure and then their dead-end jobs. This could be supported by Willis’ ethnographic study on a number of ‘lads’ at school.

This study showed that these boys had come to terms with the fact they were going to be stuck in dead end jobs as they did not achieve anything at school and therefore formed anti-school subcultures to deal with this. According to Cohen this amounts in status frustration as the individuals become frustrated that they cannot achieve anything and with their low status in society. Due to this, they turn their attentions to achieving through other means – crime, they reject the success goals of common culture and replace them with others as Merton described in his responses to cultural goals.

This new found calling can help them to gain status and recognition, especially from their peers, albeit for the wrong reasons and thus a delinquent subculture is formed. It can be seen as a collective solution for all the problems faced by the lower classes. Cohen believes that “the delinquent subculture takes its norms from the larger culture but turns them upside down. ” Thus, the subcultures are a negative reaction to a society that has denied opportunity some of its members.

This would suggest that the members of lower status groups deviate because they are denied access to the normal routes of success and shows that because of this there is greater pressure on certain groups in society to deviate. Cloward and Ohlin follow the same path as Cohen, however they develop his ideas. According to them Cohen failed to look at the illegitimate opportunity structure. They believe that lower status groups are denied access to the legitimate means of achieving success; however an illegitimate route is available to them.

This opportunity could come from the fact that in some areas there may be a high rate of adult crime and this means that there is access for adolescence to follow the same path; however in other areas this culture may not be present. According to Cloward and Ohlin areas with a high rate of organised adult crime creates a learning environment for younger generations, meaning the common norms and values in these areas are different from those who apply themselves to the legitimate opportunity structure and a criminal subculture is created.

Conflict subcultures are created in areas where there is little opportunity for adolescence to achieve through the illegitimate opportunity structures. This means that there is no access to either legitimate or illegitimate opportunity structure. According to Cloward and Ohlin the response to this situation is usually gang violence as a means of reaching built up tension and frustration towards the lack of opportunity. Retreatist subcultures are also created by those who have failed to have access to illegitimate or legitimate opportunity structures, thus they retreat from society and enter a retreatist subculture.

Thus, all of these subcultures are created because these people do not have access to the normal means of achieving success. Other sociologists however, believe that it is not the opportunity for success but other factors that influence lower class crime rates. Miller, who studied lower class subcultures in 1950s America, discovered that the subcultures were not formed because of the inability to achieve success, but because of the existence of distinctive lower class subcultures. According to Miller there are a number of long held cultural traditions followed and these differ to those of the higher strata.

He believed that these traditions passed down from generation to generation actively encouraged lower class men to break the law. Miller believes that there are a number of focal concerns of the lower class. These focal concerns are toughness that involves trying to prove their masculinity; smartness, which involves trying to outsmart each other and excitement which involves having ‘fun’ which could involve alcohol, drugs, gambling and joy riding. According to Miller argues that delinquency is just the members of the lower strata acting out the focal concerns, if in a slightly exaggerated way!

He believes that it has a lot to do with boredom of work and these focal concerns help them to live with the day-to-day boredom. Thus, the crime rates of the lower class are not because of the opportunities available to them but because of they have their own norms, values and traditions that are carried through from generation to generation. Murray also believes that it is not due to opportunity but believes in an under-class who are a group of either unemployed or unemployable people.

He believes that this underclass share there own common norms and values and reject those of mainstream society. He believes that the welfare states are to blame as it means that people do not feel the need to work and can live of the state and reject the idea it is important to hold down a job, thus they turn to criminality. This means that he does not agree that crimes are committed because of the lack of opportunity, but more because of the opportunity to be given money from the state and not have to do anything.

Stephen Jones also agrees that there us an underclass, but believes there are also number of side issues such as racial tension and gang warfare that helps to add to the crimes. This view could be supported by crimes in Britain such as the shootings of Letisha Shakespeare and Charlene Ellis in 2003. Overall, it can be said that there are a number of reasons as to why crime rates are high in the lower class. It could be because they are denied access to legitimate means of achieving success as they need to fine some way to succeed.

However, it could also be due to the fact that learning environments are created and traditions are passed though the generations making it common and normal in the lower classes for crimes to be committed and normal for aspects such as racial tension to be a big part of life. Therefore, there it could be said that it is not just because of there is a lack of opportunity for members of the lower class, but because they already have there own norms and values of which t follow.

To what extent has actuarial Justice displaced traditional penal practice In contemporary societies? The displacement of traditional methods of penal practice within contemporary societies in favor of the more risk orientated model of actuarial justice has proved a contentious issue amongst academic and political discourse and still remains an arena of vigorous debate.

The discussion surrounding the progressive area of actuarial Justice may be seen to provide opposing arguments of equal weight and pertinence within modern structures of national criminal Justice systems throughout the globe; however the construction and application f this theoretical model of criminal Justice may differ amongst societies and have heterogeneous effects In combination with differential cultural, economic and Ideological conditions.

The concept and practice of actuarial Justice will first be considered and the way it subsequently departs from more traditional procedures of penal practice, primarily analyzing western society, with a particular focus upon the British model of criminal Justice. The arguments suggesting that contemporary isosceles are Indeed transposing conventional offender) towards an acknowledgment of potential risky and dangerous populations as a whole ND the consequential strategies of management will subsequently be discussed.

Case representations of the way in which differential executions of the same model of actuarial Justice may vary between societies and the disparate consequences they deliver will additionally be considered to highlight the divergent viewpoints and debates encompassing actuarial Justice.

Drawing upon the various outcomes actuarial Justice may be argued to impose, with specific reference to the implementation of the indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP), the debate accentuating the harms and inequalities which are promoted within reticular models of actuarial Justice and thus the argument that on the whole many traditional methods have not been displaced in favor of this new risk penology shall be assessed.

The concept of actuarial Justice is the process whereby future threats and risks posed by offenders to society are calculated and as such play a dominant role in contributing to prevention techniques and policing which endeavourer to respond to such perceived risk accordingly. Actuarial Justice assumes that deviance within society is habitual and will remain as normalization, viewed as directly resultant of modern society.

By this standard, it adopts the position of crime prevention through risk assessment, with a focus upon larger populations deemed dangerous to society opposed to the established approach of criminal Justice which places the individual and their specific offence as preeminent. It is through the depart of individualistic to generalization which has shaped the management techniques associated with actuarial Justice. It can be argued that this model of Justice is consequently unconcerned with the reformation of offenders, instead seeks to filter particular groups through thaws within the Justice system dependent upon their risk profile.

As such it is possible to deduce that actuarial Justice is primarily concerned with the existing and future threat posed upon society by offenders, making the paramount concern crime prevention and constraining lawbreaking activity contrary to providing a suitable response and the comprehension factors contributing to individual criminality. The debate and evidence promoting the implication that actuarial Justice is indeed displacing traditional penal methods is one which is widely and comprehensively presented within both academic and political discourse.

Giddiness (1994) proffers the suggestion that societies are to a greater extent preoccupied with the notion of future risk, which may be seen as a by-product of the increased threat posed within the post modern world. Giddiness and Beck (date) refer to this focus upon sustained safety and prevention of future threat the ‘risk society, in which social allegiance to the nation state is dissolved marked by a lack of reverence in traditional institutions and an ascendancy of global forces. Reflexive modernization, described as the possibility of a creative (self-)destruction for an entire epoch: that of industrial society.

The ‘subject’ of this creative destruction is not the revolution, not the crisis, but the victory of Western modernization’ (Beck, date, pop). Concept which undercuts the formations of, for example, class, gender and occupation within the social hierarchy, imposing self-confrontation with the consequences of risk society which may no longer be managed under the practices of industrial societies ‘institutionalized standards’. The paradigm presented by risk society therefore is the split from the protection f the nation state to one of constructing individuals as responsible for their own safety and risk management.

The term ‘advanced liberal’ is deployed by Rose (1996) to further emphasis this social shift, away from the explicit power of the nation state to one which governance is achieved ‘at arm’s length’, promoting greater independence and need for increased individual responsibilities. This sporadic governance of society is one which is still primarily concerned with the notion of risk and the probability of its subsequent effect, exposing the aggregate populations which are identified as presenting danger society.

The focus shifted to an increased managerial approach to crime, aimed at reducing the rate of potential offences and eliminating the presence of ‘carcinogenic situations’ (Garland, 1996). This is argued to have marked a divergence from rehabilitative responses targeted at individual offenders, to the generalizes management to particular sections of the population (Simon and Feely, 1992). No longer viewing offenders in a manner akin traditional criminal Justice responses, understanding their motives and experiences consequently in need of reformation and treatment but as universal group of potential harm.

Objectives of Punishment There have been many rules throughout history some choose to follow those rules and some choose to break the rules. The big question is the product to those who should break the rules. There was a day when parents could pk their children freely and accepted as simply normal. As the years went on, society started to see how people would take it too far. Therefore, laws had to change. It is the same within today’s prison system. Individuals are in prison because they broke the rules and would have to serve their time.

Some go to federal prison and some go to state prisons. It depends on the type of crime that a person commits; because these prisons harbor different types of criminals they also have different guidelines to follow in terms to punishing the inmates. How does sending one person to state or one person to federal prison affect the correctional system altogether? The State of California’s main goal of sentencing is to match the community sanctions with the offender.

The types of community sanctions include: Criminal offenders who benefit from prevention services and are at risk of committing more crimes include: juvenile offenders with learning difficulties, high school dropouts, and urban youth gang members. Prevention services may include activities such as special education programs, and big brother programs. Criminal offenders who have received and benefited from these early intervention services are mostly first time offenders. Early intervention programs can significantly decrease the offender’s chances for committing crimes in the future.

Offenders need substance abuse and alcohol counseling-related services, work skill development, and education, (Nieto, 1996). Offenders eligible for these programs are people in prison who can divert to alternative services and programs. The convicted offenders can be a second time or even a third time offenders who failed probation and even convicted of several of nonviolent offenses. California’s “three strike’s law,” can result in convicted felon sentenced to prison for life if the convicted offenders first two felonies were violent crimes and the third felony committed by the repeat offender is also a violent crime, (Nieto, 1996).

The main goal of these sentencing guidelines is to put the targeted offenders with appropriate community sanctions. However, there are some differences and variations in the California sentencing guidelines, which include the punishment by the nature of crime committed, frequency, and severity. A good example took place in Michigan. If an offender is arrested for burglary, which is a class ‘C’ felony in the state of Michigan, and a previous drug arrest, which are also a class C crime. The Michigan sentencing guideline rates provide sentencing options from alternative community corrections to a two-year prison sentence, (Nieto, 1996).

The community correction’s alternative gives the judge the option of sentencing the criminal offender to a community-based and secured substance abuse treatment program for a period of six months. Upon successful completion of the treatment program, the offender must complete a probationary period. The discretion of the judge comes from a vast array of options. However, if an offender is found guilty of a serious felony and has prior nonviolent felony, sentencing guidelines provide community corrections and alternatives are not authorized and a minimum two-year prison sentence may be requisite, (Nieto, 1996).

Until 1975, the federal bureau of prisons operated under the principles of the medical model of managing inmates. The medical model entailed educational, vocational, and treatment programs that attempted to transform criminal behavior into a positive and productive behaviors that would benefit society. The medical model utilized the federal inmate classification system to manage the inmate population and promote individualized treatment, (Miller, 2011).

By 1975, the federal bureau of prisons had a much greater inmate population than it had several decades earlier during its inception, and they adopted the balanced model to manage those inmates. The balanced model no longer promoted individualized treatment. The balanced model was a composite model that focused on a combination of the principles of rehabilitation, deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation, (Miller, 2011). Several other major changes over the last few decades have affected the sentencing of those convicted of violating federal laws. The U. S. Sentencing Commission of 985 limited the use of probation for federal offenses, particularly for drug offenses and violent crimes. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 limited the amount of time the prisoners could reduce from their sentences for good behavior. This new law mandated that federal prisoners must serve a minimum of 85% of their sentence. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 also abolished the use of parole for federal prisoners, (Miller, 2011). Federal prisons manage their inmates within the guidelines of a Prisoners Bill of Rights. The prisoner’s rights include clean and decent living environments.

Prisoners also have the rights to develop and maintain skills as a productive worker and have the rights to maintain and reinforce family and community ties, (Miller, 2011). The adoption of prisoner rights has helped the federal prisons avoid much of the legal turmoil that has embroiled the state prison systems. Most of the United States economist believed that in today’s times, the USA experiences the most drastic crisis in decades. All states in the United States report about significant budget shortfalls. As the results, the state governments significantly have to reduce their spending for correctional system.

For the last two decades of the 20th Century, the spending for state and federal penitentiaries increased 600% because of the growth of measured requiring economic expenditures, for example, mandatory minimum sentences, truth in sentencing laws and three-strike legislation, (Carlson, 2008). Although economic trends started affecting the consideration of sentencing policy, the public attitude toward crimes has greatly changed. Polls show that more people think that it is necessary to address the root causes of crimes and less support the use of strict measures toward criminals.

The attitude toward mandatory sentencing also underwent a change. The pool conducted in 2005 showed that 38% think that mandatory sentencing is a good idea whereas 45% of respondents prefer judicial discretion. This radical change in the attitude can be causing significant drop in the crime rate registered in the country, (Carlson, 2008). State and federal governments respond to the impact of the economic crisis on the correction system in a number of ways. The nature of problems varies, depending on the state, and so varies the strategies used.

The most popular measures are as follows: prison closings, cuts of the staff in corrections, reviewing the budget of corrections concerning nonessentials, reconsidering sentencing schemes, establishing sentencing committees and commissions. Everything in life changes all the time and will always be that way, which is why everything about the past be called history. The rules and regulations for punishing the wicked and wrong doers always have been around. Many past mistakes made; consequently, the rules had to have either adjusted or completely erased altogether to fix these mistakes.

The system of punishment is not a design to humiliate or degrade individual in any way, it is an intention to teach the difference between what is right and what is wrong according to the guidelines set forth by government officials. As the rules and regulations change, it affects the state and federal prison systems. They have had to become more lenient and tolerant with the individuals punished for their crimes. Still they have to try to maintain order within the walls of the confinement even though tougher laws outside the walls are making it easier to put individuals behind bars causing overcrowding and less money for security.

References Carlson, Peter M. (2008). Garrett, Judith Simon, Prison and Jail Administration: Practice and Theory, Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Miller, Whitehead (2011). Report Writing for Criminal Justice Professionals, 4th Edition, p140, Chapter 6, State and Federal Prisons, Retrieved from The University of Phoenix eBook Collection database. Nieto, Marcus (May 1996). Community Correction Punishments: An Alternative To Incarceration for Nonviolent Offenders. http://www. library. ca. gov/crb/96/08/#RTFToC6.

Would I answer honestly if I was participating in a national crime survey? Christina M Blanks Criminology CCJ 1017-12 Instructor Cedric Thomas Would you answer honestly if participating in a national crime survey asking about your criminal behavior, including drinking and drugs use? Why or why not? Yes I would answer honestly. The reason I would answer honestly is because it would help in the data, profiles, and to make sure that the results are correct, so there will not be any confusion in the data when criminologist go to profile criminals.

Explain how honesty and dishonesty impact self report studies. If false information is given on a survey then the data is not accurate, and when criminologist go to use the data to profile a criminal it will not be correct. When true information is given on a survey, data will be entered correctly, and when time to profile a criminal it will be accurate and more affective. As long as you are honest on a survey or anything else, the results come out correct and can change data so that criminologist can create better profiles when profiling criminals.

Also to better help criminologist figure out why a person committed the crime, what lead the person to commit a crime, and how they may be able to stop people from committing crimes. Self-report study is a method for measuring crime involving the distribution of a detailed questionnaire to a sample of people, asking them whether they have committed a crime in a particular period of time. Self-report study has been a good method for criminologists to determine the social characteristics of ‘offenders’.

Self report studies involve confidential questionnaires that invite the respondents to record voluntarily whether or not they have committed any of the listed offences. Negative affectivity: how serious a threat to self-report studies of psychological distress? Brennan RT, Barnett RC. Harvard Graduate School of Education, Department of Administration, Planning and Social Policy, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.

Women’s Health. 1998 Winter; 4(4):369-83. Serious questions have been raised about the common practice of relying on self-report measures to assess the relation between subjective role experiences on the one hand and both mental and physical health symptoms on the other. Such self-report measures may reflect a common underlying dimension of negative affectivity (NA), thereby leading to spurious results.

In this article, we present findings from analyses in which we estimate, using a hierarchical linear model, the relation between subjective experiences in job and marital roles and self-reports of symptoms of psychological distress after controlling for NA in a sample of 300 full-time employed men and women in married couples. Results demonstrate (a) that NA can account for a great deal of the variation in self-reported psychological distress, as much as half in the case of the men in the sample; (b) that estimates of the relations between a self-reported predictor of social-role quality (e. . , marital-role quality, job-role quality) may be biased by failure to include NA as a predictor of self-reported psychological distress; (c) that the degree of bias in these estimates is dependent on the nature of the predictor, and (d) that the role of NA as a confounder does not appear to be dependent on gender. – ncbi. nlm. nih. gov Male and female differences in self-report cheating James A Athanasou, University of Technology, Sydney Olabisi Olasehinde, University of Ilorin – Nigeria

Cheating is an important area for educational research, not only because it reduces the consequential validity of assessment results, but also because it is anathema to widely held public principles of equity and truthfulness (see Cizek, 1999 for a comprehensive review of the topic). Moreover, modern education is centered on numerous situations that really depend upon a student’s honesty. The purpose of this paper is to review the extent of academic cheating and to describe any gender differences in self-reports. pareonline. net/getvn. asp? v=8&n=5 References Brennan RT, Barnett RC. Harvard Graduate School of Education, Department of Administration, Planning and Social Policy, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. Women’s Health. 1998 Winter; 4(4):369-83. www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov James A Athanasou, University of Technology, Sydney Olabisi Olasehinde, University of Ilorin – Nigeria Cizek, 1999 www. pareonline. net/getvn. asp? v=8&n=5 http://www. sociologyindex. com/self_report_studies. htm