Should violent video games be banned or regulated Essay

Should violent video games be banned or regulated - Essay Example This paper tends to discuss that violent video games should be banned since they create a negative impact upon the minds of the players, especially when they are at the tender age of adolescence (thesis). Nearly every teenager knows the names of some of the most violent video games like Mortal Combat, Resident Evil, Marvel vs. Capcom, Doom, Manhunt, Dead Rising, Gears of War, Grand Theft Auto, and the list continues. All of these games require the player to kill, shoot, slash, and stab their enemy using bombs, swords, and chainsaw. They have to kill the police officers to get to the target, hit the pedestrians, split the opponent using chainsaws, and what not. Preteens and teens want to play these games more than non-violent ones, and then, they apply it in their real lives because they are not capable of differentiating the gaming world from the real world. Last decade has shown an increase in violence rate among children in the United States, and studies show that children are incr easingly being treated for anger management thanks to the growing use of video games. Children tend to have less-developed ability of decision-making or critical thinking, and so, they cannot realize what is wrong with what they are viewing. Thus, their minds learn or absorb every act they see. The reason is that violent video games succeed in getting the person involved in the character he is playing, so much so that he starts playing that character in the real life. For example, females are normally portrayed as weaker and powerless characters in video games. When children watch this, they apply it real life because they would have learnt to disrespect women. This is only an example. There are thousands of different facets of violence and aggression that the players learn from violent video games. The tragedy is that the effect doubles in strength when the player is at the tender age of adolescence. Previous generations used to play doctors, police, thieves, chefs, and the oomph g enerated by the flight of the imagination would get used up in playing the game physically. But with video games, that energy comes out in the form of frustration, aggression, and violence. Smith, Lachlan and Tamborini suggest that mature games are more violent that those rated for general audience, and feature child perpetrators with frequent gun violence. When a child watches such violent acts and plays the character using his hands and mind, the energy generated by the flight of the imagination keeps the physical responses from getting expressed. So, when this energy gets its chance, it gets expressed in the real life. This is why children who watch violent video games are violent in their nature too. For example, parents do not know why their child, who plays Resident Evil on his PlayStation 3, is becoming violent day by day; beats his younger siblings; remains isolated most of the time; and, has complaints coming from his school that he bullies his class fellows. A check on his routine activities will show that the credit goes to video games if he plays some. All of these negative impacts make one claim that violent video games should be banned. Researchers like Bartholow and Anderson have found that teenagers who play violent video games have higher heart rate, get emotionally aroused easily, and are more aggressive verbally and physically than those who play non-violent games. Thus, the nature of video games played has an adverse

The Social Side of Decision Making -GP Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

The Social Side of Decision Making -GP - Essay Example (Larson 1989, p. 46) Here, members of an organization thrive by observing others and rationalizing their actions according to comparisons made with themselves against other people. The upshot is people tend to conform to what is popular at the expense of individualism because that is the safe and easy way to move forward and get things done. This environment is dangerous when we talk of social learning theory because employees’ negative actions are collectively learned from each other. First off, communication occupies the utmost importance in the whole equation. Nike has reportedly suffered a $100 million loss in a quarter as a result of a miscommunication between the management and the company’s techies. According to Sharon Morgen (2005), the technicians were waiting for the Nike management for decisions, while the management, for its part, was expecting the techies to make the decision. As a result, an important project was botched and has generated not just loss of money but an incidence of bad blood between the parties concerned. Certainly, talking with and involving all of the people involved in the decision-making process is one of the best ways to avoid the alienation of labor that Karl Marx fretted so much about†¦ If they own the decision, if it is as much theirs as yours [the CEO’s], it becomes impossible to excuse later performance deficits with standard â€Å"it wasn’t my idea† excuse. It was their idea. (p. 159) Suggestions on changes are mostly on decision-making fronts. First off, whether it is big-decisions or minor ones, such as deciding on a new corporate logo, it should call for participation and input from everyone. The idea is that there should be a group ownership of a decision so as to remove the stigma of corporate autocratic impulses. Secondly, there should be a delegation of authority not of responsibility. Like in the case when someone blundered on a project and he gets fired for it –

This essay compares and contrasts the political philosophy of Hobbes and Locke Essay Example for Free

This essay compares and contrasts the political philosophy of Hobbes and Locke Essay In this paper, I will examine the political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. I will investigate both mens ideas individually and offer my own views on their theories. I will conclude the paper by comparing and contrasting the notions introduced in their respective writings. Thomas Hobbes was born in Wiltshire, England in 1588. He lived in one of the most unsettled periods in English history. Following a rebellion against King Charles, there resulted a civil war, which began in 1642. As a consequence of this political instability, Hobbes was forced into exile in November of 1640. He remained abroad living on the continent for approximately eleven years. During this period he worked and conversed with many of the great philosophers of his time. It was while in Paris in 1640 that Hobbes finally matured the plan for his own philosophical work. It was to consist of three treatises, dealing respectively with matter or body, with human nature, and with society. It was his intention, he says, to have dealt with these issues in this order, but his country was in turmoil with concerns regarding the rights of dominion, and the obedience due from the sovereigns subjects. As a result of this, Hobbes began instead with his examination of society. When stable government seemed to have been re-established by the Commonwealth, he had his ideas published in London. The same year, 1651, saw the publication of his greatest work, Leviathan, and his own return to England, which now promised a safer shelter to the philosopher than France, where he feared the clergy and was no longer in favour with the remnant of the exiled English court. The last twenty-eight years of Hobbes long life were spent in England. Hobbes philosophy can be described as materialistic, and mechanicalistic. He believed everything is matter. One cannot differentiate between matter, life and mind. To describe social reality, Hobbes would argue, is like describing physics or biology. It is concerned with matter in motion. He argued that all human life and all human thought are to be understood quite simply as matter in motion. In this regard Galileo heavily influenced his thinking. Hobbes identified two distinguishable types of motion. These he defined as vital motion and voluntary motion. I will not indulged heavily into these notions, except to say, that Hobbes believed that the ultimate goal in all human motion is toward self-preservation. Basically what he is saying is that all motion is a result of fear of death. Although reason plays a significant role according to Hobbes, it is largely a regulatory instrument to these basic motions (1). Hobbes philosophical ideas are largely portrayed in his text, Leviathan. In this piece, he discloses the fact that he feels the evils of absolute power is still better than living in a society without that ultimate overseer. Perhaps as a result of the turbulent time in which he lived, Hobbes had an almost chronic fear of living within a chaotic society. It was his belief that a society without an absolute leader would be, or eventually become a chaotic one. Hobbes gives us a psychological explanation for why he believes this to be so. In his opinion, all people are by nature selfish and egoistic. As all men are selfish, and wish only to satisfy their own needs, competition for resources inevitably occurs. Resources are not infinite in amount, but are limited in their availability. As a result, Hobbes argues that conflict between men over these resources is unavoidable. Hobbes refers to people living in this state of nature as natural man (Hobbes, Pt 1, Ch 11). In his brief introduction to the Leviathan, Hobbes describes the State as an organism analogous to a large person. He shows how each part of the state parallels the function of the parts of the human body. He notes that the first part of his project is to describe human nature, in so far as humans are the creators of the state. To this end, he advises that we look into ourselves to see the nature of humanity in general. Hobbes argues that, in the absence of social condition, every action we perform, no matter how charitable or benevolent, is done for reasons, which are ultimately self-serving. For example, when I donate to charity, I am actually taking delight in demonstrating my powers, in its most extreme form; this view of human nature has since been termed Psychological Egoism. Hobbes believes that any account of human action, including morality, must be consistent with the fact that we are all self-serving. Hobbes speculates how selfish people would behave in a state of nature, prior to the formation of any government. He begins noting that humans are essentially equal, both mentally and physically, in so far as even the weakest person has the strength to kill the strongest. Given our equal standing, Hobbes continues by noting how situations in nature make us naturally prone to quarrel. There are three natural causes of disagreement among people: competition for limited supplies of material possessions, distrust of one another, and glory in so far as people remain hostile to preserve their powerful reputation. Given the natural causes of conflict, Hobbes concludes that the natural condition of humans is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear (Hobbes Pt 1, Ch 13). Under such conditions, there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Hobbes continues offering proofs that the state of nature would be as brutal as he describes. We see signs of this in the mistrust we show of others in our daily lives. In countries, which have yet to be civilized, people are barbaric to each other. Finally, in the absence of international law, strong countries prey on the vulnerability of weak countries. Humans have three motivations for ending this state of war: the fear of death, the desire to have an adequate living, and the hope to attain this through ones labour. Nevertheless, until the state of war ends, each person has a right to everything, including another persons life (Ibid). In articulating the peace-securing process, Hobbes draws on the language of the natural law tradition of morality, which was then championed by Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius (1583-1645). According to Grotius, all particular moral principles derive from immutable principles of reason. Since these moral mandates are fixed in nature, they are thus called laws of nature. By using the terminology of the natural law theory, Hobbes is suggesting that, from human self-interest and social agreement alone, one can derive the same kinds of laws, which Grotius believes are immutably fixed in nature (2). Throughout his discussion of morality, Hobbes continually re-defines traditional moral terms, such as right, liberty, contract and justice, in ways which reflects his account of self-interest and social agreement (Hobbes Pt 1, Ch 14). For Grotius and other natural law theorists, a law of nature is an unchangeable truth, which establishes proper conduct. Hobbes defines a law of nature as follows: A Law of Nature (lex naturalis) is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or takes away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best preserved. Hobbes continues by listing specific laws of nature all of which aim at preserving a persons life. Hobbess first three Laws of Nature are the most important since they establish the overall framework for putting an end to the state of nature. Given our desire to get out of the state of nature, and thereby preserve our lives, Hobbes concludes that we should seek peace. This becomes his first law of nature (Ibid). That every man ought to endeavour peace as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war; the first branch of which rule contains the first fundamental Law of Nature, which is, to seek peace and follow it. The second law of nature advocates the position that man in this state is entitled to defend himself (Ibid). The mutual transferring of these rights is called a covenant and is the basis of the notion of moral obligation and duty. For example, I agree to give up my right to steal from you, if you give up your right to steal from me. We have then transferred these rights to each other and thereby become obligated to not steal from each other. From selfish reasons alone, we are both motivated to mutually transfer these and other rights, since this will end the dreaded state of war between us. Hobbes continues by discussing the validity of certain contracts. For example, contracts made in the state of nature are not generally binding, for, if I fear that you will violate your part of the bargain, then no true agreement can be reached. No contracts can be made with animals since animals cannot understand an agreement. Most significantly, I cannot contract to give up my right to self-defence since self-defence is my sole motive for entering into any contract (Ibid). Hobbes derives his laws of nature deductively, modelled after the type of reasoning used in geometry. That is, from a set of general principles, more specific principles are logically derived. Hobbess general principles are: that people pursue only their own self-interest, the equality of people, the causes of quarrel, the natural condition of war, and the motivations for peace. From these he derives the above two laws, along with at least 13 others. Simply making contracts will not in and of itself secure peace. We also need to keep the contracts we make, and this is Hobbes third law of nature. Hobbes notes a fundamental problem underlying all covenants: as selfish people, each of us will have an incentive to violate a contract when it serves our best interests. For example, it is in the mutual best interest of Murphy and I to agree to not steal from each other. However, it is also in my best interests to break this contract and steal from Murphy if I can get away with it and what complicates matters more, Murphy is also aware of this fact. Thus, it seems that no covenant can ever get off the ground. This difficulty is overcome by giving unlimited power to a political sovereign who will punish us if we violate our covenants. Again, it is from purely selfish reasons that I agree to set up a policing power, which will potentially punish me if I deviate from the agreement (Hobbes, Pt 1, Ch 15). As noted, Hobbes first three Laws of Nature establish the overall framework for putting an end to the state of nature. The remaining laws give content to the earlier ones by describing more precisely the kinds of covenants, which will preserve peace. For example, the fourth law is to show gratitude toward those who comply with covenants. Otherwise people will regret that they complied when someone is ungrateful. Similarly, the fifth law is that we should be accommodating to the interests of society. For, if we quarrel over every minor issue, then this will interrupt the peace process. Briefly, here are the remaining laws: cautious pardoning of those who commit past offences; the purpose of punishment is to correct the offender not an eye for an eye retribution; avoid direct or indirect signs of hatred or contempt of another; avoid pride; retain only those rights which you would acknowledge in others; be equitable; share in common that which cannot be divided, such as rivers; items which cannot be divided or enjoyed in common should be assigned by lot; mediators of peace should have safe conduct; resolve disputes through an arbitrator. Hobbes explains that there are other possible laws, which are less important such as those against drunkenness, which tends to the destruction of particular people. At the close of Chapter 15, Hobbes states that morality consists entirely of these Laws of Nature, which are arrived at through social contract. Contrary to Aristotles account of virtue ethics, Hobbes adds that moral virtues are relevant to ethical theory only in so far as they promote peace. Outside of this function, virtues have no moral significance. Hobbes continues in Chapter 17 by arguing that in order to ensure covenants and peace, power must be given to one person or one assembly. We do this by saying, implicitly, I authorise and give up my right of governing myself, to this person or to this assembly of people, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner. His definition of a commonwealth, then, is this: One person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defence This person is called a sovereign. He continues that there are two ways of establishing a commonwealth: through acquisition, or through institution. In Chapter18 Hobbes lists the rights of rights of sovereigns. They are, subjects owe him sole loyalty, subjects cannot be freed from their obligation, dissenters must consent with the majority in declaring a sovereign, sovereign cannot be unjust or injure any subject, the sovereign cannot be put to death, the sovereign has the right to censor doctrines repugnant to peace, legislative power of prescribing rules, judicial power of deciding all controversies, make war and peace with other nations, choose counsellors, power of reward and punishment, power of all civil appointments, including the militia. In Chapter 19 he discusses the kinds of governments that can be instituted. The three main forms are monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. He argues that monarchy is best for several reasons. Monarchs interests are the same as the peoples. He will receive better counsel since he can select experts and get advice in private. His policies will be more consistent. Finally, there is less chance of a civil war since the monarch cannot disagree with himself. His overriding belief here is that the sovereign, most likely a king, will only have the best interests of his subjects at heart, as he, Hobbes argues, is only as wealthy as his country. Rather inconsistently when you consider his theory overall, Hobbes also grants certain rights, or liberties to the subjects living within his monarchist society. These liberties, as you might expect, are established to ensure the right of the subject to self-preservation. Therefore, if the sovereign unnecessarily places the life of the subject in peril, either directly or indirectly, the covenant has in effect been broken, or the subject is free to disembark from the agreement. The subject is expected to defend his country from attack, should that occur, despite the danger it may entail for his life. However, he is not obliged, for instance to testify against himself in court, as that would quite obviously be counter to his desire for self-preservation. This concept was incorporated in the United States Constitution in the form of the Fifth Amendment, and many upstanding members of society have enjoyed its benefits since, including Al Capone, Jimmy Hoffa, and most recently Junior Soprano! Another idea introduced by Hobbes which was embraced by the United States legal system, as well as our own, was his belief that the subject had the right to sue the sovereign if his needs were not met. Hobbes theory has often been criticised quite severely and I believe rightly so. His individualistic perspective suggests that our self-preservation is the dominant motivation in our lives. Society exists, if we are to believe Hobbes theory, simply as a method of ensuring our self-interest, or at least maximising it. His theory is built on the premise of mutual trust, yet the society would collapse without the threat of sanctions imposed by the sovereign. So, in fact it is not trust that is the raft that keeps society afloat, rather it is obviously fear. The most disturbing fact in regard to his theory, I believe, is Hobbes notion that society arises largely as a result of our selfish ways. He suggests that we are egoistic, as we as being are driven by our desires. It seems that he does not seriously consider the fact that our desires could incorporate any notions of legitimately, and unselfishly wanting to help others. This in my opinion is rather bizarre. There are other aspects to Hobbes theory that I find difficult to comprehend. His assertion that a monarchy offers us the best option for government is ludicrous to say the least, and his arguments to support this position are feeble at best. I will address just one of them here, to prove my point. In the course of his dialogue, Hobbes makes the claim that the best possible way to ensure that the constantly changing desires and needs of subjects are met, is to have a King or Queen as sovereign. When you consider some of the monarchies of our day, I will draw particular attention to the British monarchy, and how out of touch they are with their subjects, I think that it is fair to say that Hobbes opinions on this issue is almost laughable. Another aspect of Hobbes political philosophy that I find particularly disconcerting is his belief that conflict must never occur between subjects and their sovereign. Often, if not always, change only occurs as a result of conflict. Without conflict, we might never develop and advance significantly as societies. Revolutionary leader Thomas Jefferson said: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is natural manure (3). I believe that the threat of revolt is always necessary in order to keep leaders firmly in tune with the needs of their citizens. The final comment I will make on Hobbes work on this matter relates to the fact that I believe his theory is extremely defeatist in essence. Basically, Hobbes theory is built on the foundation that we desire peace so much that we should be willing to accept the evils of absolute power, or even dictatorship in order to maintain it. John Locke was born in Somerset, England in 1632. Like Hobbes, he lived in a period of great political instability. He was forced to flee England twice as a result of this situation, however, unlike Hobbes; he was not soared against mankind as a consequence. In his major political works, his Two Treatise on Civil Government, he attempts to justify the revolution of King William of Orange against the legitimate monarch, King James II. In the first of these two treatise, Lockes purpose is to attack the ideas of pro-royalist; Sir Robert Filmer, and specifically his theory put forward in his work; The Patriarch. In the Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke puts forth his own ideas on the establishment of a democratic government. The focus of this piece shall be in the analysis of this work, as it displays Lockes own thoughts and believes. Locke developed the theoretical argument that became the basis for democracy, as we know it today within the western world. His ideas were to become the building blocks for the development of the constitution in both the United States of America and France. In fact, sections of his writings appear almost word for word in the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The influence of his ideas on todays world cannot be understated. In examining Lockes ideas, I also hope to demonstrate how distinctly different his thoughts often are from Hobbes. There are a few similarities between the two mens work however. For one, Locke, like his predecessor Hobbes, begins his work by giving what he believes is the historical description of how governments came into existence. In the same way as Hobbes, Locke commences by examining the relevance of the social contract to the establishment of government. Also corresponding to Hobbes he discusses the state of nature. However, Locke believes that the fundamental mistake in Hobbes theory is in his ideas introduced on this issue. Lockes state of nature is a largely peaceful one. Men live side-by-side, own property, possessions, and are free to do with these as they please. He rejects Hobbes notion that men are as a rule selfish, but rather thinks of a situation were many times people cooperate with each other, but unfortunately sometimes they are egoistic, but not always. For Locke, the law of nature that governs behaviour within this state, is quite simple. People should not harm others in his life, health, liberty or possessions (Locke, Ch 2). Life within the state of nature for Locke is a life of perfect freedom. Its moral order is overseen by the law of nature, which is God-given, and exists independent of any constitution or society. Essential to this moral well being, are the natural rights of the people living within this state. These entitlements include that of life, liberty, property and also the authority to reprimand those who violate the natural law. It is difficult for individuals to do this alone, and so it is as a result of this factor, according to Locke that we were forced to vacate the state of nature, and establish societies. When a person breaks the law of nature, it is essential, he believes, to have the institutions in place to be able to punish the person, or persons in a fair and just manner. It is due to this fact that man originally voluntarily agreed to create society in order to have these institutions established (Ibid). These institutions that had to be erected had a number of goals, or objectives, which it needed to fulfill. Firstly, laws had to be created that reflected the needs of the population. In addition, these laws must become relatively fixed within the framework of that society, to the extent that those who would come under their influence would know them. Locke also felt that it was imperative to have at the core of these legal institutions impartial judges, who would have both knowledge of the law and authority to adjudicate in legal disputes. Finally, Locke rightly believed that all of this would be pointless unless the society had in place the resources to enforce these laws. If it did not, then quite simply the laws would not be followed (Ibid). Locke also discusses what he calls his state of war, which is very similar to Hobbes state of nature. In this state, there are no common judges or established institutions of law. Locke describes an environment where the fittest survive. This state of war can exist both inside a society and outside the bounds of it. It occurs when somebody, or some group, attempts to acquire resources solely as a result of their power. Opposition to such tyrants, according to Locke, is not only justified, but he would even argue that at times it is completely necessary for the maintenance of the society. If an issue such as this is not addressed, life will simply revert back to the conditions experienced within the state of nature (Locke, Ch 3). The accounts I have already given of the consensual agreement among citizens to establish legal institutions to oversee the upholding of the law are the basic rudiments of democracy. Laws within such a democracy are created only after long deliberation, and are not invented on the spur of the moment. This is often the case under the rule of monarchies, according to Locke, were laws are created and destroyed at will to simply fulfil the wishes of the sovereign. Furthermore, laws within a democracy will be created by representatives of the people and so, Locke argues, should clearly reflect the wishes of the society with whom they represent. An interesting fact built into Lockes theory, is his belief that certain aspects of human behaviour should not come under the influence of governmental control. He referred to these as rights. This particular notion of Lockes was another aspect of his theory incorporated in many national constitutions. The most notable of these, is The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. The bill of rights grants those living in the United States certain undeniable rights, such as the right to free speech, the right to choose where one worships, and also the right to bare arms to mention a few. Also included within The Bill of Rights is the right to own private property. Again, this is another aspect of Lockes theory that he gave particular emphasis to within his work (Locke, Ch 5). Locke considered property to be much more than just material substance. He believed property to actually be part of oneself, as it is clearly the fruit of your own labour. Throughout his writings, property is used in a much broader sense than the dictionary definition of the word. It is usually referred to as meaning such things as life and liberty. Therefore, Locke argues that to attempt to take an individuals property from them, it is much more than simply theft. Instead, he maintains that it is an assault on you as a person. This particular opinion on property is very different from the beliefs expressed by Hobbes. For him, property is a creation of society. Furthermore, he insists that no person can claim anything as his own within the state of nature. What you own is only yours for as long as you are strong enough to hold onto it. Lockes ideas were obviously in marked contrast to those put forward by Hobbes regarding property. Locke believed that we were all created equal in nature; therefore, society had no right to take from us what nature had given to us initially. This conception was advanced further and indeed incorporated into law. It is of course the NOTION that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. I deliberately highlighted the word NOTION, because I believe that is all it is, and the truth in reality is actually far from this (Ibid). The most democratic aspect of Lockes theory is incorporated in his ideas that when we departed from the state of nature, we voluntarily gave up some of our personnel rights to the government. Specifically, the right to punish those who transgress the law. This right is given to the executive who is appointed by the people and is therefore responsible to them. Lockes government is almost like a secretary for the mass population. Acting like a secretary, the government should simply do the jobs required by, or requested by the people. If the government does not fulfil the wishes of the population, Locke maintained, they should be removed from office. For Locke, power lies with the people. Revolution by the people is not to be ruled out if the government has to be removed for not fulfilling the wishes of its citizens (Locke, Ch 8). In order to prevent abuse of power by the government, or indeed any one area of it, Locke introduced the idea of dividing the government into three branches. Each branch has the capability to influence, and if necessary, restrain the other branch or branches of government. The different strands of government he established were the executive, legislature and federative. Again, these branches of government are remarkably similar to those used in the United States. The executive and legislature proposed by Locke are very similar to those used in the U. S. government. Lockes federative branch was intended to deal with foreign negotiations, and does not in fact exists in the U. S. government framework. The third element of government there is called the judicial and deals with the legal applications of government. The overall goal of using three branches of government is nonetheless very similar in purpose; in that its aims are restrict power from becoming to great within any one branch (Locke, Ch 12). Locke was particularly concerned with the executive gaining too much power. As a result, it is the legislature who is granted the greatest power and influence within government. The legislature makes the laws and the executive is only charged with enforcing these laws. Therefore, the ability of the executive is severely restricted by the limitations of the laws sent down from the legislature. Another interesting aspect of Lockes desire to restrict the executive is his belief that they could be removed from their office by the legislature should they defy the rules of that office. Again, an idea very similar to this is found within the scheme of the United States government. Impeachment proceeding can be taking against any member of the civil government, if they are believed to have broken any rules of their office. In the history of the country, impeachment proceeding has been introduced against three presidents. These affairs, overseen by the House of Representatives determine whether there is sufficient evidence against the accused to warrant a trial before the Senate. None of the three presidents were ever convicted of the charges against them. President Andrew Jackson was taken to trial before the Senate, but failed to be convicted by one vote. President Richard Nixon resigned from his office before proceeding could really get under way, following the fallout from the Watergate Scandal. Most recently, President Bill Clinton survived a vote in the House of Representatives and so was not forced to undergo a legal trial before the Senate. I believe Lockes theory is a substantial improvement on that proposed by Hobbes. Locke correctly identifies the two major weaknesses I see in Hobbes theory. They are centred on his believes that man is innately selfish, or egoistic, and so is motivated solely by self-interest, and also his believe that man can live stably and securely under the sovereign leadership of a monarch. He fails to convince me on either of these points. Despite the fact that I see much to be praised about Lockes theory, I feel that there are certain frailties that should be addressed, and I will conclude this essay by those that I feel are most significant. Essential too much of Lockes theory is his belief that living within the state of nature, we have certain rights, which he insists should be transferred to the societal or governmental level. Locke provides little evidence to offer support for the significance he places on these rights, and the evidence he does provide is certainly not totally convincing. Concerning opinion on social contract, Locke fails to identify his position on the double contract, and seems to tactfully dodge this difficult issue. Although certainly not nearly as individualist as Hobbes, Lockes theory does seem to lean in favour of the individual, rather than towards the genuine concerns of the group as a whole. One notion within his theory in particular seems to suggest this standpoint most clearly. His belief that we consent to joining society, definitely suggest to me that one is doing so for ones own good, and any thoughts of common good, are secondary at best. Finally, Lockes belief that government and society should be built on the premise that the majority rule, at first glimpse appears fair. This idea certainly was an enormous step forward from the ideas of those who came before him, going all the back to the ancients. However, often within democracies this notion is taking too literally and the majority rule only while considering their own interests and not those of the society as a whole. Minorities are treated like second-class citizens. Evidence of such behaviour can easily be found even within our own borders in Northern Ireland. Endnotes: 1. Gauthier, D. Hobbes, A Companion to the Philosophers. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), 305. 2. Blackburn, S. Dictionary of Philosophy. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 163. 3. Darwin, B. (Ed. ) The Oxford Library of Words Phrases. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), 130. Note: All other quotations cited throughout this essay are taken from: 4. Hobbes, T. Leviathan, Classics of Moral Political Theory. (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company Inc. , 1996, 2nd Ed. ). 5. Locke, J. Two Treatises of Civil Gover.

New Zealand’s National Drug Policy (2007-2012) Analysis

New Zealand’s National Drug Policy (2007-2012) Analysis This research question requires you to read the provided case study on New Zealand’s National Drug Policy (2007-2012). Analyse and assess the strengths and weaknesses of this policy In your analysis, you are to consider the following guided questions: What is the present policy? -the present policy talks about the National Drug Policy 2007-2012. This policy discusses how the government implements methods and strategies in the control of alcohol, tobacco and drug use in a unanimous structure thru the New Zealand context. How, when, and why did the policy come into being? -According to the Methodology Report for the year 2007/08 New Zealand Alcohol and Drug Use Survey, an integrated programme of household surveys and group studies has been conducted by the Health and Disability Intelligence of the Ministry of Health. Thus, this is where the formulation of the policy has been based. This survey has also been considered a sequel of the previous ones dated years 1995, 2000 and 2004 for alcohol and drug use in the years 1998, 2001, and 2003. Furthermore, aside from the fact that the survey was the foundation for the latest national policy, it also answered the stipulated objectives which include the identification of alcohol, illicit and drug use for frivolous reasons in New Zealand; quantity and frequency of use; frequency of risky driving; type of harm for self-brought by alcohol and drug use and risk and self-seeking behaviour to combat its over usage. (Bhattacharya A., Health and Disability Intelligence, Ministry of Health 2010). What influenced policy -makers to adopt a particular course of action, what were the objectives of the policy? The result of the survey conducted by the assigned sectors from the Ministry of Health motivated policy-makers to frame actions in combatting the use of these substances. Among the objectives are for: the prevention of tobacco, alcohol and illegal drug use. the reduction of harm caused by tobacco, alcohol and illegal drug use as well as its exposure to second-hand smoking the reduction of harm towards individuals, families and community due to the consumption of the mentioned elements. the significant others and society to be prevented and remain secure by monitoring the illegitimacy of its use. Who are the policy-makers? Which, if any, interest groups do they represent? These policy-makers are people working from the Ministry of Health specifically those assigned in the Health and Disability Intelligence. Lawmakers of linkages from the central and local government agencies and non-government organizations also contributed in the making of these guidelines to be in a success. To date, these are amended from time to time by these individuals to solve issues concerning the misuse of alcohol, drugs and tobacco in this country. What have been the stages and methods, including organizational arrangements and structures, used in the policy-making process? The National Drug Policy has two parts. The first part includes the guidelines as a whole context. This includes the strategies, methods and all organizational involvements and edifices utilized during the course of making the policy. The next part talks about the flow and approach of policy in the next five years. What interested groups, if any, have been consulted and what sources and kinds of advice have been obtained? As mentioned in the policy, sectors that are affected from the central and local government agencies as well as those from non-government organizations are involved in the implementation of the strategies. Moreover, since New Zealand belongs to the three United Nations Conventions namely Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971 and Convention against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Substances 1998, information that is provided under the policy has been derived from these sources. In similar fashion, data gathered from these conventions guide the making of the policy in terms of implementing control measures to ensure the use of narcotic drugs and other addictive substances for medical and scientific purposes without over using it. Drug trafficking prevention measures has also helped the makers of the policy in formulating their methods for this matter. Is the process of policy-making that has been adopted the best we can hope for? How might it be improved? In my subjective opinion, reading to thru the National Drug Policy, it has provided a detailed framework on how to approach the concerns of alcohol, illegal drugs and alcohol use of New Zealand. Indeed it is a good policy yet I cannot say that this is the best policy that we can hope for since in general, things change and everything in the world is drastic. This includes the way human beings deal with these substances. For it to be improved, I believe that lawmakers must depend on the result of studies of the current time and researches concerning these elements must be perennial. Strategies and approaches should be appropriate to current situations and individuals. Is it good policy? Yes, I remain certain that this is a good policy because it covers all concerns and how it will be applied to involved individuals, their families and the society as a whole. What has it achieved? The policy has achieved a number of outcomes. First is the Smoke-free Environment Amendment Act of 2003 which restricts the use of tobacco in working areas like restaurants and bars; as well as the ways on how to prevent non-smokers to second-hand smoke. The second is the formulation of the Community Action on Youth and Drugs which encourages the involvement of communities that aim to address the ill effects of drug on the youngsters. The third is the Effective Drug Education with its goal to educate the young people, their families and the society about drugs, tobacco and alcohol use. Lastly, The Alcohol Advisory Council which is geared to address drinking culture of adults in New Zealand. Would a different policy be likely to yield better results? For whom? -I do not think that a different policy would result to better results. There is actually no need for a different policy. What is important is that the strategies molded under this policy should be implemented properly and be amended in accord to the present concerns and issues. Does the present policy need changing? Conditions will apply as to the changing of the policy. As mentioned, the making of these laws are derived from studies, surveys or researches, hence, it will need changing based upon the results of these procedures. Is it feasible to change it and in what ways? -Yes, it will be feasible for change for as well as the amendment will address the problems identified or if the methods mentioned in the policy is no longer effective. In your analysis you should also address the policy feasibility (Can it be implemented?) and plausibility (Can it be designed to make sense?). OR Complete a plan on which to develop solutions for the policy issue. (There is no requirement to develop the actual solutions). In your analytical response, you need to include the following: Describe the intervention you wish to develop (Public health interventions maybe found in intervention types such as legislation and regulation, resource allocation, financial and non-financial incentives, education, community and inter-sectoral collaboration/partnership, communication, community and organisational delivery, public policy development, engineering and technical interventions, and service development and delivery) Identify, describe and quantify the essential resources or things needed for the implementation of the policy. Identify appropriate programmes and activities that could be undertaken. Consider: Existing services that could contribute to a strategy Needed services that are possible to help implement the strategy Applicability of possible services Identify and define strategies or alternative means for achieving implementation objectives. Identify and develop policy goals and objectives Make recommendations as to the practicability and acceptability of the policy. Politics, laws and budgets If policies are the outcomes of choices that entities make to achieve their goals, then politics is the means to those ends. The product of the two (policy and politics) is usually legislation and the budgetary process that is required to support implementation. Politics is an activity whereby people achieve what they want by exerting power and influence. It involves conflict over the distribution of scarce resources. As a Healthcare professional you may be required to advocate and therefore be involved in political action. There are four major areas within which you may be asked to influence outcomes – the workplace, government, professional organisations and the community. For each of these areas, discuss and analyse the types of decision you may be asked to help influence. Workplace. The advocacy in my workplace with regards to following policies should start within myself as an individual. This should commence within me which means that I must follow the policies mandated in my workplace. Being a model of my own self I will be able to influence others to follow rules and regulations. This must be through my actions and behaviors aside from my word of mouth. In addition, policies in our workplace are important in order for the staff and all other people concerned to abide with the institutional guidelines. This will help maintain the standards of orderliness and harmony or peace in my workplace. However, there are rules that are not appropriate as to some situations. Thus, I can contribute by involving myself in committees and may express concerns or suggestions for these regulations to be reviewed. I can also join surveys or be one of the respondents for policy improvements. Government. As a Filipino, I could not help but look back on how our government runs our policies. While it is true that laws are based from general standards globally and relatively in the same concept, undeniably, even our own lawmakers do not follow their own policies that they proposed and passed in the congress. To be an advocate in following the policies of the government here in New Zealand, I can do this by being a law-abiding individual. Moreover, I can contribute more by being familiar to the government system in this country. Professional Regulation. Involvement in civic groups related to my profession is a beneficial advocacy since it will be easier for me to relate to concerns with regards to policy. Community. By all means, there are groups in the community which focuses on policy issues. I can make myself available for surveys and any other methods to make doors for policy implementation and amendments. REFERENCES: http://www.ndp.govt.nz http://www.moh.govt.nz

Educational Productivity :: Teaching Education

Educational Productivity Educational productivity is the improvement of students outcomes with little or no additional financial resources, or a consistent level of student performance at a lower level of spending. Educational productivity is based on effectiveness. This is the linkage between student outcomes and the level and use of finacial resources in the schools. Production functions are concerned with how money is related to student learning and lifetime earnings. Other approaches are cost functions, data envelopment, and the impact of smaller class size on the student learning. Although there has been extensive research about educational productive functions, there are still many disagreement among researchers as to whether or not a statistical link can be found between student outcomes and money. However, it is agreed upon that the single largest expendidture in the public school system is teacher expenditure. Early production-function research, modeled on classical economic theory, tried to correlate a set of educational "inputs" to a single "output." Most of these studies were inconclusive. Because of the complexity of the schooling process and factors (like child poverty) outside schools' control, it has been difficult to isolate statistically significant one-to-one correlations between inputs and student learning. The most common outcomes measured in such studies are standardized test results, graduation rates, dropout rates, college attendance patterns, and labor-market outcomes. Inputs usually include per-pupil expenditures; student-teacher ratios; teacher education, experience, and salary; school facilities; and administrative factors (Lawrence Picus 1997). The most famous production-function study was the U.S. Department of Education's "Coleman Report." This massive survey of 600,000 students in 3,000 schools concluded that socioeconomic background influenced student success more than various school and teacher characteristics (Picus 1997). Another type of research was culminated in Eric Hanushek's 1989 study, which analyzed results of 187 production studies published during the previous 20 years. Using a simple vote-counting method to compare data, Hanushek found no systematic, positive relationship between student achievement and seven inputs. Hanushek's findings have been challenged by recent studies using more sophisticated research techniques. When Larry Hedges (1994) and associates reanalyzed Hanushek's syntheses using meta-analysis, they discovered that a $500 (roughly 10 percent) increase in average spending per pupil would significantly increase student achievement. Likewise, Faith Crampton's comprehensive analysis (1995) of inputs affecting achievement in New York State schools found that expenditures seemed to matter when they bought smaller classes and more experienced, highly educated teachers.

Henry ford :: essays research papers

THE LIFE OF HENRY FORD Henry ford was born July 30, 1863. He was the first child out of six born to William and Mary Ford. He grew up on a big farm in Dearborn, Michigan. He went to school in a one room building and did many chores every day after he got home. He did not like farm chores. He did like to work on mechanical things. When he was 16, he left home to move to Detroit. He got a job there working on machinery. Three years later he went back home and began to work on repairing steam engines. In 1888, he married Clara and ran a sawmill to make money. In 1891, Henry Ford began working for Edison Illuminating Company in Detroit. He was promoted to Chief Engineer in 1893. He began to experiment on internal combustion engines on his own time at home. In 1896, he built his own vehicle that moved on its own called the Quadricycle. He was not the first to make a machine that ran on gasoline by itself. In 1903, the Ford Motor Company was created. He became the Vice President and the Chief Engineer of the corporation. There were other people who helped run the business and give money to it. The company only made a few cars a day. In 1908, he made the Model T. It was reliable and did not cost a lot. It was easy to drive and handle on rough roads. It was a huge success. By 1918, almost half of all the cars in America were Model T’s. In 1910, in Highland, Michigan, Mr. Ford built another plant to make a lot more of these cars. In 1913, he created the first true

Can a Criminal Be Rehabilitated Back Into Society

The purpose of this paper is to research the whole subject of criminals and their rehabilitation. This is a discussion of what society’s responsibility in this matter is and how to approach whether it is reform or punishing those who commit the crime. Should a criminal who claims insanity be rehabilitated into society? This is a common argument that many people find themselves wondering if such thing is possible when a heinous crime has been committed. It is stated that juries find for only about 20 percent of the defendants who plead insanity. Sixty to 70 percent of insanity pleas are for crimes other than murder. They range from assault to shoplifting. There are some opponents that attack the insanity defense for confusing psychiatric and legal concepts, in the process undermining the moral integrity of the law. During the 150 years or so the insanity defense has been and still is an issue in the U. S. within our criminal law and the medical psychology that have gone through many tireless changes in the criminal responsibility and the mental illness relationship. Ignoring this issue we may have steered away from an important source in our struggle with this type of defense. The United States Federal law states that insanity is a fair defense if at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of his or her acts. When invoking insanity as a defense, a defendant is required to notify the prosecution. In some states, sanity is determined by the judge or jury in a separate proceeding following the determination of guilt or innocence at trial. In other states, the defense is either accepted or rejected in the verdict of the judge or jury. Even if evidence of insanity does not win a verdict of not guilty, the sentencing court may consider it as a mitigating factor. The criminal justice system under which all men and women are tried holds a concept called mens rea, a Latin phrase that means â€Å"state of mind†. According to this concept, criminals committed who commit their crimes are oblivious of the wrongfulness of their actions. A mentally challenged person, including one with mental retardation, who cannot distinguish between right and wrong is protected and exempted by the court of law from being unfairly punished for his/her crime. Insanity, what does that word mean? I don’t have a clear cut definition for it but for most of us when we think of that word we think of someone mentally ill or just plain crazy. Does insanity makes us loose the thought of moral value and or our justification from right from wrong? It is stated that most socially recognized authorities such as psychiatrists, medical doctors, and lawyers agree that it is a brain disease. Let say it is a brain disease should we link insanity with other brain diseases like strokes and Parkinsonism? Unlike these two diseases, whose causes can be medically accounted for through a behavioral deficit such as paralysis, and weakness, how can one explain the behavior of crimes done by such criminals? Doctor’s and psychiatrists describe what they say insanity is a neurological illness explaining it to a jury a person's or in this case a criminal’s reason and behavior. It rarely excuses it. Insanity is now considered a legal concept not a medical diagnosis. The most widely known rule in the insanity defense refers to the M'Naghten rule which arose in 1983 during the trial of Daniel M'Naghten who pleaded that he was not responsible for his murders because he suffered from delusions at the time of that he committed the crime. The rule states that a criminal defendant may be excused from criminal responsibility if at the time of the crime, the person accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from a mental illness, as not to know the nature and the quality of the act he or she was doing. The biggest problem I feel is that with the insanity defense is either examined from a legal angle or a psychoanalytical one which involves talking to people and taking many tests. These tests so far show no proof of confirming the causal relationship between mental illness and the criminal behavior based on a deeper neurological working of the brain sciences. Many doctors and or professionals seemed to find themselves in a double bind where with no clear medical definition of mental illness, he/she must answer questions of legal insanity- beliefs of human rationality, and free will instead of basing it on more concrete scientific facts. For example, let us use a case study to elaborate the argument that law in this country continues to regard insanity as a moral and legal matter rather than ones based on scientific analysis. Remember the insanity case of Andrea Yates which occurred in Houston, Texas in 2002. In March 2002, a panel of Texas jurors debated her fate. A devoted mother with a history of postpartum psychosis, hallucinations, and two suicide attempts, Yates admitted to drowning her five children in a bathtub. Prosecutors conceded that Yates was mentally ill but knew right from wrong and so was not legally insane at the time of the murders. Under the law, jurors could not be told that Yates would be hospitalized if she were found NGRI. The jury rejected her claim of mental illness, found her guilty, spared her the death penalty but sentenced her to life in prison. At least there Yates would be kept in protective custody because of her ongoing mental problems and possible threats from other inmates and unless she needed intensive psychiatric care she would eventually mingle with the general population at the prison known for housing some of the toughest, meanest women in Texas. Yates's symptoms are controlled by medication. How about rehabilitating the insane, is it possible or how are we the society should deal with this issue? Rehabilitation is based on the idea that the criminal violation resulted from inadequate socialization of the offender; it represents an effort to provide some counseling and practical training that can aid an offender and therefore weaken or remove the stimuli that led him or her to committing the crime. Can we just say that the person with the mental illness is not capable of being normal or distinguishing right from wrong so we should just lock them up and throw the key away? One might wonder if criminals use the insanity defense to escape punishment. After all a crime had been committed and therefore they too should be punished maybe not as a normal criminal but with the proper medical assistance needed for their behavior can be controlled. Some of these individuals can in fact be rehabilitated back into society by properly giving them the right medication and not just sending them to jail where they get no help. If in fact the insanity defense is successful the offender then is placed in psychiatric hospital or the psychiatric ward of a state prison which are secured facilities. Many offenders who plead insanity are nonviolent offenders, and most if not all will stay at the hospital longer than they would if they were going to prison if had been convicted of the crime that they were accused of. Again the insanity does not always bring freedom but indeterminate detention. The defense by which defendant argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law due to being legally insane when at the time the crime occurred. The defendants who attempt such defense will undergo mental examinations beforehand. There are four various insanity defense standards. The first is the M’Nagthen rule which the standard is whether or not he or she did not know what he or she was doing or didn’t know it was wrong. The burden of proof varies, from proof by a balance of probabilities on the defense to proof a beyond a reasonable doubt on the prosecutor and or depending on the state jurisdiction. The second is the irresistible impulse test which legal standard is if he or she could not control his conduct. The third is the substantial capacity test. The legal standard is if he or she lacks the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to control it and the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt and rests on the prosecutor. The fourth test is the Present federal law which indicates if he or she lacks the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct. The burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence and rests on the defense. The insanity defense shouldn’t be confused with incompetency. Individuals who are incompetent to stand trial are held in a mental institution until they are considered capable of participating in the proceedings. The insanity defense should also be kept separate from issues concerning the mental retardation. In the case in 2002 Atkins v. Virginia the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the execution of the mentally retarded criminals constituted the cruel and unusual punishment and it was prohibited by the 8th Amendment. If a criminal is acquitted by reason of insanity then execution was not an option. The insanity defense has contributed to making the law more humane. The criminal justice system seeks to protect the public, with the main goal of the mental health system in treating and rehabilitating individuals with some sort of mental illness. Another issue is what critics contend that the insanity defense undermines the functioning of the criminal justice system. Wealthy defendants are able to hire experts and have the advantage over the indigent. The defense may be exploited by perfectly sane defendants who have the resources to conclude a credible defense. The wealthy defendant who pleads insanity usually hires his or her own medical team to be evaluated. This often leads to corruption in a rich man's trial, because the wealthy can afford to buy their doctor's verdicts. This is very unfair in that, the wealthy can afford to hire expensive doctors and defenses and are more likely to get off with a non-guilty verdict whereas the poor man or middle class man has less of a chance even if they are actually insane. This presents a violation of the very basic concept that all people, regardless of their wealth or social status, should be given the equal treatment they deserve when in a court of law, but that is not always the case. Some studies have shown that as many as 70 percent of NGRI defendants withdrew their plea when a state-appointed expert found them to be legally sane. Individuals in this type social status are using the insanity plea as a way to get away with their crime and not have to be punished. If a person is truly insane and cannot be counted on to know the difference between right and wrong, this should be seen beforehand by medical doctors, declared insane and then taken out of society's reach for the safety of the innocent. Those who are harmful to the public should be kept away, not as a measure of cruelty but for the one with mental illness they should get the proper care in a secure facility and once they are sane than be transferred to a prison facility. The law states that we have the same rights no matter what our social status is so therefore should get the same treatment. That is not always the case though. It is difficult even for doctor’s to really determine if the defendant really was insane when the crime was being committed. To really understand the nature of the insanity defense one must go back and look at where and how it started. In today's insanity cases, mental health experts, doctors, and scientists have important roles to play. They can inform the jury of the nature of the defendant's mental illness, the likeliness that the crime might be repeated, and whether the defendant may bring harm upon himself/herself. However, like any court case, there will always be divided opinions amongst the mental experts regarding the outcome of the case depending on whether they testify for or against the defendant. Dangerous mentally ill offenders should be confined appropriately to proper treatment facilities while receiving care. Mentally ill offenders I believe would be less of a financial burden to society since they would be able to return to society as productive members following their required treatment. Many mentally ill offenders would no longer be sentenced as if they had the mens rea required for committing the crime. Instead, mentally ill offenders would receive a constitutionally valid sentence that is proportional to their degree of culpability, thus accurately reflecting the criminal justice system’s notion of criminal culpability. References: Anniken Davenport (2009), Basic Criminal Law: The Constitution, Procedure, and Crimes, 2nd Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Paul B. Weston & Kenneth M. Wells & Marlene Hertoghe (1995), Criminal Evidence for Police, 4th edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Larry J. Siegel (2004), Criminology: Theories, Patterns, & Typologies, 8th edition, Belmont, Ca. Wadsworth/Thompson Kenneth J Peak (2003), Policing in America: Methods, Issues, Challenges, 4th edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. References: Anniken Davenport (2009), Basic Criminal Law: The Constitution, Procedure, and Crimes, 2nd Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Paul B. Weston & Kenneth M. Wells & Marlene Hertoghe (1995), Criminal Evidence for Police, 4th edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Larry J. Siegel (2004), Criminology: Theories, Patterns, & Typologies, 8th edition, Belmont, Ca. :Wadsworth/Thompson Kenneth J Peak (2003), Policing in America: Methods, Issues, Challenges, 4th edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Todd R. Clear & George F. Cole (2003), American Corrections, 6th edition, Belmont, Ca. Wadsworth/Thompson Frank Schmalleger (2002), Criminal Justice: A brief imtroduction, 4th edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Todd R. Clear & George F. Cole (2003), American Corrections, 6th edition, Belmont, Ca. Wadsworth/Thompson Frank Schmalleger (2002), Criminal Justice: A brief imtroduction, 4th edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.