Free Essays on Juveniles

Are juveniles as under control today as they were in the past? Crime plays a major role in today’s society. The government follows the policy and has always followed the policy that no crime goes unpunished. The controversy that surrounds the United States courtrooms today is whether or not a minor needs to stand trial as an adult for committing a serious offense. These decisions made by the judge or jury in the preliminary hearing affect the rest of the suspects’ life. The opposing argument to the issue of juveniles being tried as adults; remains that the minor is too young and immature to understand the consequences of what he or she did wrong. Juveniles need to be punished according to the severity of the crime in which they committed. Ultimately, juveniles should stand trial as adults. The opposition believes that holding court cases where juveniles remain tried as adults undoubtedly violates the rights of the juvenile. Initially, the age of a person when the alleged crime occurred decides whether or not he or she will be tried as a juvenile. "Definitions of who is a juvenile vary for different purposes within individual states as well as among different states" (Rosenheim 36). Children, ages seven to seventeen, who are suspected of crime, must be treated as children in need of guidance and encouragement, and not as vicious criminals (Emerson 6). Also, the opposition feels that the juvenile cannot accept full responsibility for his or her actions. Some people insist that each minor who committed a crime was influenced in some way or another (Emerson 8). Not only does the opposition believe that the minor was influenced, but they also believe that the juvenile was not able to control his or herself (Emerson 8). In addition, juveniles have not yet reached the necessary maturity level to share a prison amongst other adults. Minors, isolated for punishment, do not deserve this radical treatment (Staff Report C13). Numero... Free Essays on Juveniles Free Essays on Juveniles Are juveniles as under control today as they were in the past? Crime plays a major role in today’s society. The government follows the policy and has always followed the policy that no crime goes unpunished. The controversy that surrounds the United States courtrooms today is whether or not a minor needs to stand trial as an adult for committing a serious offense. These decisions made by the judge or jury in the preliminary hearing affect the rest of the suspects’ life. The opposing argument to the issue of juveniles being tried as adults; remains that the minor is too young and immature to understand the consequences of what he or she did wrong. Juveniles need to be punished according to the severity of the crime in which they committed. Ultimately, juveniles should stand trial as adults. The opposition believes that holding court cases where juveniles remain tried as adults undoubtedly violates the rights of the juvenile. Initially, the age of a person when the alleged crime occurred decides whether or not he or she will be tried as a juvenile. "Definitions of who is a juvenile vary for different purposes within individual states as well as among different states" (Rosenheim 36). Children, ages seven to seventeen, who are suspected of crime, must be treated as children in need of guidance and encouragement, and not as vicious criminals (Emerson 6). Also, the opposition feels that the juvenile cannot accept full responsibility for his or her actions. Some people insist that each minor who committed a crime was influenced in some way or another (Emerson 8). Not only does the opposition believe that the minor was influenced, but they also believe that the juvenile was not able to control his or herself (Emerson 8). In addition, juveniles have not yet reached the necessary maturity level to share a prison amongst other adults. Minors, isolated for punishment, do not deserve this radical treatment (Staff Report C13). Numero... Free Essays on Juveniles Overrepresentation of minorities in the juvenile justice system is well established. On a national level, minority youths are arrested in numbers greatly disproportionate to their numbers in the general population. While black youths comprise approximately 15% of the ten to seventeen year old populations at risk for delinquency, recent figures indicate that they constitute approximately 28% of youths arrested (Engen; et al.). Further, according to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's "Children in Custody" census, minority overrepresentation increases dramatically as one moves beyond arrest to later stages in processing. For example, minorities constitute approximately 62% of youths held in short-term detention facilities, and approximately 60% of those committed to "deep end" long-term institutional programs (Engen; et al.). Quite apart from issues related either to the extent or causes of differential minority involvement in crime, a number of researchers have expressed concern about whether the juvenile justice system operates with a selection bias that differentially disadvantages minority youths. Race Effects in Juvenile Justice Decision-Making: Findings of a Statewide Analysis This study was divided into two parts. In Part I, the researchers reported the findings of quantitative analyses conducted using official records of cases processed through the juvenile justice system in Florida. In Part II, they supplemented and provided a basis for a more detailed interpretation of the quantitative findings, drawing upon in-depth interviews with system insiders- juvenile judges, state's attorneys, public defenders, and social service personnel. Data for the quantitative portions of this study were obtained from the Client Information System maintained by Florida's Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The data set includes the total population of youths referred for juvenile intake proc...

Crucible Good vs Evil Essays

Crucible Good vs Evil Essays Crucible Good vs Evil Paper Crucible Good vs Evil Paper rGood at its best, Evil at its worse When good and evil clash, does good always triumph? In a theocracy, religion is the basis of their living politically, socially, and economically. Therefore in a place where theocracy is practiced, good should always conquer evil. However this is not the case in Salem during the witch trials. Religion in Salem is taken very seriously. All citizens work toward pleasing and serving the lord. They repent all evil and choose the way of the Lord instead the way of the devil. With a government system such as this, good should always conquer evil, but in the play â€Å"The Crucible†, we learn that evil can sometimes get its way. The Salem witch trials prove that even in a place where religion is a number one priority, where all good is to be done, evil still lurks and can cause trouble instantaneously. Religion brings out the good in people such as Rev. Hale but yet can also provoke evil in people such as Abigail. In the play Reverend Hale was summoned to discover whether or not there are witches in Salem. Reverend Hale’s religion causes him to do what is right. He is always just and believes in working in the name of the Lord. Towards the end of the play when many have been accused of being witches, Rev. Hale knew that the people were not because he was able to see past the lies and evil that roamed the area. On the other hand Abigail Williams uses religion in the opposite way. When she began her plan for revenge, she used their religion as a cover up. Abigail knew that the people of Salem would instantly jump to her accusations because it had to do with something threatening their religion, and this was not tolerated. Immediately as Abigail and the other children began their claim of witch practices, this was when good and evil were hard to discover. Good and evil played a vital part throughout the entire play. Citizens in Salem had to make a decision on whether or not they would chose the way of the lord, or the way of the devil. An example of this taking place was when Mary Warren made a decision to choose evil over good for fear of her life. Mary Warren knew that Abigail and the children were lying. When John Proctor iscovered this, he made her go and confess to prove his wife’s innocence because this was the right thing to do. However Mary Warren is overwhelmed when Abigail begins her accusations on her, and now Mary Warren is forced to go over to the evil side because she knows that in their religion acts such as lying is not tolerated and can ultimately lead to a greater consequence. Abigail has made it so that it is very difficult to tell her evil ways. Religion in Salem is something that is not taken lightly and practiced all the time. John Proctor was a huge rebel when it came to religion. He did not attend church weekly, but instead worked on Sundays. He did not get along with Rev. Parris, and was very discreet about his things. During Proctor’s trial, all these accusation were brought up against him thus making it look as if Proctor is the evil one. Religion takes a huge toll in choosing what is good and what is evil. These accusations allow Danforth and the court to perceive Proctor as more of a witch then a God-Fearing person. This same accusation would be difficult to prove against Abigail because she attends church regularly, pretends to be the victim, and shows a childish innocence that makes her very believable. Making her evil ways undetectable The Crucible has proven that good and evil can co-exist in a place as religious as Salem. Good conquered at times during the play, but evil also prevailed. When dealing with a theocracy as the one in Salem, it is especially hard to determine good from evil. Abigail proved this throughout the play. The crucible shows you that evil can live right under you. Abigail was least suspected and proceeded in beginning the witch trials. Citizens have to make the hard choice of determining whose right and whose wrong and decided who side they should be on. Not all can succeed in making the correct decision, especially when you are oblivious to evil because it seems as if it was good at first. Salem religious ways helped bring about good and evil within the town.

Types of Reasoning. Problem Analysis using Duty-Oriented Reasoning Essay

Types of Reasoning. Problem Analysis using Duty-Oriented Reasoning - Essay Example Utilitarian reasoning is also known as end-result based reasoning technique. On the other hand, duty-oriented reasoning technique is also known as deontology (Motta). For the believers of deontology school of thought, it is necessary that they assume responsibility as an essential and the intention of the individual should be relevant to the context. Moreover, it is also important for the individual to possess prior knowledge about the subject before experiencing it, so that the individual is ready for any consequences. Utilitarian reasoning, on the other hand, requires an individual to determine the locus of righteous and wrongful deeds absolutely depending on the resultant of the reasoned action over other actions. Last but not the least, from an ethical point of view in a health care setting, using utilitarian reasoning indicates that work related behavior and attitude of individuals is characterized as quantitative and deductive approach. Whereas, duty-based reasoning used by ind ividuals indicates that work related behavior and attitudes can be characterized as qualitative and inductive approach towards ethics. 1(b): Problem Analysis using Duty-Oriented Reasoning Problem: A patient is admitted into the hospital and I am the on-call doctor available. The condition of the patient is severe and there are only 10% chances that the patient might survive, if he is admitted to Critical Care Unit (CCU) and a ventilator is installed, which gives that patient artificial life support. But keeping him on ventilator will be painful for the patient and might prolong the suffering of potential death. Principles Involved: Being a doctor, I took the oath of saving peoples’ lives. Therefore; it is the call of my duty to save the life of the patient in any case. Options Available: The options available to me are to admit that patient into CCU and make him suffer the pain of ventilator. Or, I can leave that patient in the emergency unit and let him die peacefully. Compa ring the Options: Role Duty: Putting the patient on ventilator might save him, which also allowed in the medical laws and policy frameworks. Beneficence: Ventilator might save the life of the patient but it will be painful for him. Once the patient recovers, he might fear the type of treatment he received. Nonmaleficence: It is my duty to provide relief to patients and do not put them in pain. But putting the patient on ventilator will put him in further pain and misery, where the chances of him recovering are less. Decision: Weighing the chances of patient to survive with the help of ventilator, against the chances of his immediate death, I have decided not admit the patient in CCU. The facility could be used for other patient who has more chances of survival, whereas the current patient would be saved to suffer more pain while admitted into CCU. 2. Veracity Truthfulness: Truthfulness in medical ethics refers to a situation where the doctor is required to tell the truth to the pati ents, no matter what will be consequences of the news. The concept of truthfulness requires the physicians not to lie to their patients and state the problem as it is. For example, if a person is found HIV positive, then his doctor/physician must communicate the diagnosed disease to the patient without thinking about the consequences. Autonomy Autonomy, in medical ethics, refers to the right of patients of freedom to know everything about the