4 or more pages but needs to be at least 4 pages. APA FORMAT. NO PLAGIARISM.choose topic from one of the following attached chapters from the textbook. the instructions are also an attached file.
term_paper_directions.doc

ac_chapter_4.docx

ac_chapter_6.docx

ac_ch_7.docx

ac_ch_8.docx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

TERM PAPER:
You may select a topic or chapter from our textbook. You are to write a 4 page term paper due at the end
of the term. All APA requirements are required.
– Make sure to apply a variety of outside references (rather than just the textbook).
TERM PAPER:


You may select a topic or chapter from our textbook. You are to write a 4 page term paper. All
APA requirements are required.
Make sure to apply a variety of outside references (rather than just the textbook). Please
write a 4 page paper using APA citing.
Term Paper Rubric
What Should I Do?
Points Available
TERM PAPER:
You may select a topic or chapter from our textbook. You are to write a 4 page term
paper. All APA requirements are required.
– Make sure to apply a variety of outside scholarly references (rather than just
the textbook).
Term Papers, I do not need to approve topics for the term papers as long as the topic
comes from the textbook, however remember to avoid using the book for the term
paper. You can use outside topics but they must relate to the course or field.
Things that need to be present in every APA paper and/or assignment:
1.
Title Page (all double-spaced and centered)
1. Title of paper
2. Student’s name
3. School Name
4. Time spent on assignment
5. Running head needed (the words ‘Running head’ must be present
as well… this is only on the Title Page though)
6. Page number of 1
7. Abstract (all double-spaced)
1. The word ‘Abstract’ should be centered on page
100 Points
Did I do This?
Where?
Points Earned
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
The first line of the Abstract is not indented or tabbed
Running head needed, however, the words ‘Running
head’ should not be present
Page number of 2
Content/body of paper (all double-spaced)
1. Running head needed, however, the words
‘Running head’ should not be present
2. Appropriate page numbers (3 through how many
pages are presented)
3. Must have in-text citations (should be from
academic sources)
4. Must appropriately address short and long
quotes
5. Must address all questions/issues from
assignment/research paper instructions
6. Reference Page (the word ‘References’ should
be centered; should be double-spaced between
references; references themselves can either be
double-spaced or single-spaced; it looks tidier
when references are single-spaced with a
double-space between references)
1. Hanging indentions
2. Sources should have the appropriate
page numbers in references (when
applicable)
3. Running head needed, however, the
words ‘Running head’ should not be
present
4. Appropriate page number
Running Heads
1. Be at the top of every page and it should be even with the page
number; it should be flush on the left margin
2. The words ‘Running head’ should only be present on the Title
Page and the ‘R’ in Running should be capitalized, but the rest
should be lower case (Running head:)
3. The title or partial title used for the Running head should be in all
capital letters on every page
Page numbers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Should be a page number on the top of every page and it should be
even with the Running head; it should be flush on the right margin
Page numbers start on the Title Page; the Title Page is always
page 1
The Abstract is page 2
Content should begin on page 3 +
References page should also have a page number
A number of students are still struggling with APA style. I have attempted to point
out examples in your posts. The best way to learn APA style is to buy the book and
practice. Here is a tip that you may appreciate more, however (smile). When you
search in the Academic Search Premier/ EBSCO database you can actually choose a
function that allows you to change the citation to APA format and email it to
yourself. Then all you would have to do is copy and paste it into your paper.
Here are the steps:
1. Enter your search terms and locate article of interest.
2. Click on the add to folder
3. Enter the folder and click email option
4. Look to the lower right of the screen and click on the arrow to change citation
style. I believe AMA is the default style. Choose APA instead.
5. Click send to send the article to your email account.
6. You should see the APA reference at the beginning of the article when you open
the file.
You still need to change the sentence capitalization (only the first word she be
capitalized) and always double check the APA citation because I have caught a few
minor errors at time. Hope this helps.
Also, I am not always sure if students who are listing multiple references for their
posts are citing original sources that they personally read, versus paraphrasing works
cited in one article. If you did not personally read the material it is called a
secondary source. To properly cite secondary sources, refer to both sources in the
text, but include in the References list only the source that you actually used/read.
For instance, suppose you read Lowe and Mascher (2001) and would like to
paraphrase the following sentence within that chapter: Bandura (1989) defined selfefficacy as “people’s beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over events
that affect their lives” (p. 1175).
In this case, your in-text citation would be (Bandura, 1989, as cited in Lowe and
Mascher, 2001). Lowe & Mascher (2001) would be fully referenced within the list
of References. Bandura (1989) would not be listed. For more information on citing
secondary sources, see Example 22 on p. 247 of the 5th edition Publication Manual
(soft cover version).
It is my aspiration that you leave this course with an increased knowledge in APA
style 🙂 Make sure that you are using APA formatting in your final paper.
TOTAL POINTS
100 points
Chapter 4
The Punishment of Offenders
Clear, Todd R.; Reisig, Michael D.; Cole, George F.. American Corrections. Cengage
Learning. Kindle Edition.
ON JANUARY 14, 2014,a defendant in a tax-evasion case entered a U.S. district
courthouse in Chicago. This was the day of his sentencing. Just two months prior, he
had pleaded guilty to one count of tax evasion. The defendant in the case was
billionaire Ty Warner. Warner made his fortune as the sole owner of Ty Inc., the
company that manufactures Beanie Babies. The toy maker’s net worth has been
estimated at $2.6 billion.1 Warner’s case involved concealing Swiss bank accounts
from the IRS, totaling $107 million, for more than 10 years. He admitted to evading
$5.6 million in past taxes by setting up secret bank accounts. According to federal
prosecutors, this “was a crime committed not out of necessity but greed.” The
prosecutors acknowledged that the defendant had led an “otherwise law-abiding
existence.” Warner’s supporters provided at least 70 character references to the
judge, all of which highlighted the defendant’s charitable contributions to society.
However, the prosecution noted that “[c]harity is not a get-out-of-jail free card” and
that “[g]iven his means, the defendant’s charitable works are hardly exceptional.”
Prosecutors argued that failure to give Warner a prison sentence would send a
message that committing tax evasion is simply “a bad investment.”2 The federal
sentencing guidelines stipulate a sentence of between 46 to 57 months in federal
prison for the crime Warner admitted to committing. Noting that Warner had
already paid $25 million in back taxes and that the defendant had suffered public
humiliation for his crime, U.S. District Judge Charles Kocoras sentenced Warner to
two years of probation. Warner will also be required to pay a $53 million fine, an
additional $100,000 fine, $500,000 in prosecution fees, and a court fee of $100.
Finally, Warner was sentenced to perform 500 hours of community service.3 Crucial
to every decision in the criminal justice process is the question “Is it just?” Should Ty
Warner have been given probation, put on house arrest, or sent to federal prison?
Did justice serve those harmed by Warner’s crimes? Did the sentence support
society’s need for the maintenance of right conduct? What rationale governed the
judge’s sentencing decision?
The Purpose of Corrections Rationales for punishment are influenced by the broad
philosophical, political, and social themes of their era. Prevailing ideas about the
causes of crime are closely tied to questions of responsibility and hence to the
rationale for specific sanctions. As explained in Chapter 2, the ideas of the classical
school of criminology, founded by Cesare Beccaria, squared nicely with the concepts
of the Age of Reason, as did Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism. In the context of the
times, “making the punishment fit the crime” was more humane because it sought to
do away with the brutal punishments often inflicted for trivial offenses. With the
rise of science and the development of positivist criminology toward the end of the
1800s, new beliefs emerged about criminal responsibility and the desirability of
designing punishment to meet the needs of the offender. The positivists considered
criminal behavior to be the result of sociological, psychological, or biological factors
and therefore directed correctional work toward rehabilitating the offender through
treatment. Before further examining the goals of the criminal sanction, we should
consider what the term punishment actually means. Herbert Packer argues that
punishment is marked by these three elements: 1. An offense. 2. The infliction of
pain because of the commission of the offense. 3. A dominant purpose that is neither
to compensate someone injured by the offense nor to better the offender’s condition
but to prevent further offenses or to inflict what is thought to be deserved pain on
the offender.4 Note that Packer emphasizes two major goals of criminal
punishment: inflicting deserved suffering on offenders and preventing crime.
Criminal sanctions in the United States have four goals: retribution (deserved
punishment), deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. In Chapter 21 we
describe the movement to make restorative and community justice a fifth goal of the
criminal sanction. Here, as we discuss each of the four traditional justifications for
punishment, bear in mind that although judges often state publicly that their
sentencing practices accord with a particular goal, conditions in correctional
institutions or the actions of probation officers may be inconsistent with that goal.
Thus, sentencing and correctional policies may be carried out in such a way that no
one goal dominates or, in some cases, that justice itself is not demonstrably served.
Retribution (Deserved Punishment) Retribution is punishment inflicted on a person
who has violated a criminal law and so deserves to be punished. The Biblical
expression “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” illustrates the philosophy
underlying retribution. Retribution means that those who commit a particular crime
should be punished alike, in proportion to the gravity of the offense or to the extent
to which others have been made to suffer. Retribution is deserved punishment;
offenders must “pay their debts.” This idea focuses on the offense alone, not the
future acts of the criminal or some other purpose such as reform or deterrence.
Offenders must be penalized for their wrongful acts, simply because fairness and
justice require that they be punished. With the Age of Reason and the development
of utilitarian approaches to punishment, the idea of retribution lost much of its
influence (see Chapter 2). However, some scholars claim that the desire for
retribution is a basic human emotion. They maintain that if the state does not
provide retributive sanctions to reflect community revulsion at offensive acts,
citizens will take the law into their own hands to punish offenders. In this view, the
failure of government to satisfy the people’s desire for retribution could produce
social unrest. Retribution helps the community emphasize the standards it expects
all members to uphold. This argument may not be valid for all crimes, however. If a
rapist is inadequately punished, then the victim’s friends, family, and other
members of the community may be tempted to exact their own retribution. How
about a young adult who smokes marijuana? If the government failed to impose
retribution for this offense, would the community care? The same apathy may hold
true with respect to offenders who commit other small, nonviolent crimes. But even
in these seemingly trivial situations, retribution may be useful and necessary to
remind the public of the general rules of law and the important values that it
protects. Since the late 1970s, retribution as a justification for the criminal sanction
has aroused new interest. This has occurred largely because of dissatisfaction with
the philosophical basis and practical results of rehabilitation. Using the concept of
“just deserts” (or deserved punishment) to define retribution, some theorists argue
that one who infringes on the rights of others deserves to be punished. This
approach is based on the philosophical view that punishment is a moral response to
harm inflicted on society. Put differently, basic morality demands that wrongdoers
be punished. Andrew von Hirsch, a well-known punishment scholar, says that “the
sanctioning authority is entitled to choose a response that expresses moral
disapproval: namely, punishment.”5 The deserved-punishment approach requires
that sanctions be administered only to exact retribution for the wrong inflicted and
not primarily to achieve other goals, such as deterrence, incapacitation, or
rehabilitation.
Deterrence Many people think of criminal punishment as a way to affect the future
choices and behavior of individuals. Politicians frequently talk about being “tough
on crime” in order to send a message to would-be criminals. This approach goes
back to the eighteenth century. Recall from Chapter 2 that Jeremy Bentham was
struck by what seemed to be the pointlessness of retribution. Other reformers
adopted his theory of utilitarianism, which holds that human behavior is governed
by the individual’s calculation of the benefits versus the costs of one’s acts. Before
stealing money or property, for example, potential offenders consider the
punishment that others have received for similar acts and are thereby deterred.
Modern thinking distinguishes two types of deterrence.6 General deterrence
presumes that members of the general public will be deterred by observing the
punishments of others and will conclude that the costs of crime outweigh the
benefits. For general deterrence to be effective, the public must be constantly
reminded about the likelihood and severity of punishment for various acts. They
must believe they will be caught, prosecuted, and given a specific punishment if they
commit a particular crime. Moreover, the punishment must be severe enough to
impress them well enough to avoid committing crimes. By contrast, specific
deterrence (also called special or individual deterrence) targets the decisions and
behavior of offenders who have already been convicted. In this approach the
amount and kind of punishment are calculated to discourage the criminal from
repeating the offense. The punishment must be sufficiently severe to make the
criminal conclude, “The consequences of my crime were painful. I won’t commit that
crime again because I don’t want to risk being punished again.” The concept of
deterrence poses obvious difficulties. Deterrence assumes that all people act
rationally and think before they act. It does not account for the many people who
commit crimes under the influence of drugs or alcohol, those who suffer from
psychological problems or mental illness, or those who violate the law when in an
extreme emotional state. In other cases the low probability of being caught defeats
both general and specific deterrence. To be generally deterrent, punishment must
be perceived as fast, certain, and severe—but it does not always happen this way.
Knowledge of the effectiveness of deterrence is limited. For example, social science
cannot measure the effects of general deterrence; only those who are not deterred
come to the attention of researchers. A study of the deterrent effects of punishment
would have to examine the impact of different forms of the criminal sanction on
various potential lawbreakers. How can anyone determine how many people—or
even if any people—stopped themselves from committing a crime because they
were deterred by the prospect of prosecution and punishment? Therefore, while
legislators often cite deterrence as a rationale for certain sanctions, no one really
knows the extent to which sentencing policies based on deterrence achieve their
objectives.
Incapacitation Incapacitation assumes that society can, by detention in a
correctional facility or by execution, remove an offender’s capacity to commit
further crimes. Many people express such sentiments by urging, “Lock ’em up and
throw away the key!” In primitive societies, banishment from the community was
the usual method of incapacitation. In early America, offenders often agreed to move
away or to join the army as an alternative to some other form of punishment. Today,
imprisonment is the usual method of incapacitation. Offenders can be confined
within secure institutions and effectively prevented from committing additional
harm against society for the duration of their sentence. Capital punishment is the
ultimate method of incapacitation. Any sentence that physically restricts an offender
can have an incapacitating effect, even when the underlying purpose of the sentence
is retribution, deterrence, or rehabilitation. However, sentences based primarily on
incapacitation are future oriented. Whereas retribution requires focusing on the
harmful act of the offender, incapacitation looks at the offender’s potential actions. If
the offender will likely commit future crimes, then the judge may impose a severe
sentence—even for a relatively minor crime. Under the theory of incapacitation, for
example, a woman who kills her abusive husband as an emotional reaction to his
verbal insults and physical assaults could receive a light sentence. As a one-time
impulse killer who felt driven to kill by unique circumstances, she is not likely to
commit additional crimes. By contrast, someone who shoplifts merchandise from a
store and has been convicted of the offense on 10 previous occasions may receive a
severe sentence. The criminal record and type of crime indicate that he or she will
commit additional crimes if released. Thus, incapacitation focuses on characteristics
of the offenders instead of characteristics of the offenses. Does it offend the
American sense of justice that a person could receive a harsher sentence for
shoplifting than for manslaughter? Questions also arise about how to determine the
length of sentences. Presumably, offenders will not be released until the state is
reasonably sure that they will no longer commit crimes. But can we ever be
completely sure about what someone will do in the future? And, finally, on what
grounds can the state punish people for acts that the state believes they will commit
in the future? In recent years, greater attention has been paid to the concept of
selective incapacitation, whereby offenders who repeat certain kinds of crimes are
sentenced to long prison terms. Decades of criminological research have
consistently shown that a relatively small number of offenders commit a large
number of violent and property crimes. Thus, these “career criminals” should be
locked up for long periods.7 Although the idea of confining or closely supervising
repeat offenders is appealing, it is also quite expensive to do so. In addition,
selective incapacitation raises several moral and ethical questions. Because the
theory looks at aggregates—the total harm caused by a certain type of crime versus
the tota …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment