Symbolism and Sexism in Ibsen’s “a Doll’s House” Essays

ENGL 2337 April 15, 2010 Symbolism and Sexism in Ibsen’s â€Å"A Doll’s House† Henrik Ibsen, the author of the controversial play â€Å"A Doll’s House† said, â€Å"There are two kinds of moral laws, two kinds of conscience, one for men and one, quite different, for women. They don’t understand each other; but in practical life, woman is judged by masculine law, as though she weren’t a woman but a man†¦A woman cannot be herself in modern society.† Isben created the plot of â€Å"A Doll’s House† from those ideas. Ibsen was viewed by his contemporaries as a moral and social revolutionary who advocated female emancipation and intellectual freedom. He believed that freedom must come†¦show more content†¦Since Nora’s father was dying, she was forced to forge his signature in order to secure a loan that would eventually save her husband’s life, which only led to more problems in the future because in order for her to be able to repay the money she must lie about how she spends her household accounts and also lie about taking odd jobs to earn extra money. Also, the way Torvald treats Nora in the play depicts the way women were treated in the nineteenth century. For example, In Act I, Nora is little more than a child playing a role. She is a â€Å"doll† occupying a doll’s house, a child who has exchanged a father for a husband without changing or maturing in any way. Torvald treats his wife literally like a doll, calling her pet names and occasionally scolding her as if she were a child. His primary interests are his new job as a bank manager and his social standing. When he learns that his wife is involved in a legal problem that would embarrass him if it became known to the public, he reveals who he really is. He comes off as a hypocrite preoccupied with his own welfare. Also, Torvald says that Nora is now his property which is when Nora realizes she is much too good for him. Nora then decides to leave because they have been married for eight years and h as suffered enough injustice from both her father and Torvald. Nora explains to Torvald that she has been merry, not happy, being with him. She explained to him howShow MoreRelatedA Dolls House Feminism Essay1292 Words   |  6 Pagesistory has shown that prejudice has existed for a long time; progresses have been made for the better but in past years the existing prejudice was a societal norm. There are obvious types of sexism and issues which affect gender rights, but more delicate and inconspicuous elements are often swept under the rug as issues which do not need to be changed, as they are ‘tradition’. Marriages are often the subject of controversy regarding gender rights because of their grey area regarding gender roles

Reflective Assignment - Motivation - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1457 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Marketing Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? A critical theoretical and visual analysis of my experience of work Within this assignment I will show a critical, theoretical and visual analysis of my work within a night club (OMG Bristol); I have currently worked there 7 months. Work is defined by (Fineman et al, 2010) as â€Å"somewhere you undertake a physical or mental activity in order to achieve a result†. The two topics I have chosen to asses are motivation and also emotions. In relation to motivation I will be assessing Hertzberg’s (1966) theory about motivational and hygiene factors; also in relation to emotions looking at a Hochschild’s (1983) social constructionist theory. The image of motivation with the sign relates to motivation within the workplace, and is relevant for my explanation of Hertzberg’s two factor theory (1996). Also the image of the faces represents emotions, and aesthetic labour in the work place. Motivation: â€Å"Motivation is an internal forc e, dependant on the needs that drive a person to achieve† (Schulze and Steyn, 2003) Hertzberg’s (1996) theory centres around two main factors, the first being motivating factors and the second relating to hygiene factors. Motivating factors focus around the job content; such as recognition, responsibility and the work itself – this can lead to high levels of satisfaction within the job role, and see an increase in motivation. Whether its self-motivation or team-motivation. Secondly considering hygiene factors, which are considered in an organisational context, these include factors such as working conditions, pay, company policy and supervisory style – these factors can remove dissatisfaction but don’t contribute to motivation. To put this theory into context, the motivation factors are what managers must focus on to give employee’s job satisfaction and to motivate employees. Whereas hygiene factors are necessary to prevent employees being dissatisfied in the workplace – the motivators are there to motivate employees providing the hygiene factors have been taken into consideration. By not considering the hygiene factors it could cause dissatisfaction at work†¦ because hygiene factors are not direct motivators. When relating Hertzberg’s two factor theory to my personal experience, the first point to be considered is that within my current employment at OMG, there are motivating factors – the main one is the responsibility given by the company to its staff, to serve alcohol responsibly and follow the legislation implemented by the government, such as the sale of alcohol to persons under 18 is illegal. Also recognition and advancement, where if a person excels at their work they could be offered a promotion to assistant manager, then when a new venue opens are running their own night club. Because of these factors, they motivate me to do more, become available when-ever needed because of the possibility of advancement through the company, achieved by putting in more time and effort, motivating me. Secondly to be considered is the hygiene factors of OMG, such as pay; because the company pays minimum wage, this can substantially impact on my motivation to work long night shifts, whilst juggling work, university and a social life. Also the security of the venue and working conditions are a factor in my job satisfaction, knowing that I am safe because of door security and the working conditions are manageable; but sometimes when working in a cold room (e.g. cloakroom) this actually causes my job dissatisfaction. Although sometimes the supervisory style may not be a hygiene factor, and more of a motivator, when we receive recognition, this may vary depending on supervisor. The hygiene factors don’t add to my personal motivation, but merely remove the job dissatisfaction; this can vary depending on the degree of the situation. To conclude on motivation, I personally believe that some of the motivators and hygiene factors can vary, because within Hertzberg’s research he conducted, it was only on 200 engineers; therefore I believe it can vary depending on the industry. This is reinforced by (Noel, 1976) who states there is much debate on how to distinguish between hygiene and motivational factors. Another example is (Nave, 1968) who states that â€Å"the differences are due to the intensity of the labour requirement and the duration of employment† So peoples motivation may change dependant on how labour intensive the job role is and the duration of that person’s employment. The theory of Hertzberg is proven ambiguous as to whether or not factors are hygiene or motivational, it is dependent on each person’s perspective. Emotion: Emotional labour is defined as â€Å"a form of emotion regulation that creates a publicly visible facial and bodily display within the workplace† (Hochschild, 1983) Ac cording to Hochschild there are three types of emotions; the first being cognitive, this revolves around the idea that a person can change their thoughts, feelings and ideas – in doing so they can change their feelings associated. Secondly considering bodily emotions, these centres around the idea that a person can change the way they behave physically, and by doing so can create the desired emotion. Lastly is expressive emotion, which relates to when a person attempts to change their expressions to change how they feel inside. An example of this is when a person tries to laugh when trying to change their emotion to feel happier. Hochschild (1983) defines jobs involving emotions and emotional labour as thoughts that require, face-to-face or voice-to-voice contact with customers – or require the worked to produce an emotional state within another person. Also that allows the employer, through training and supervision, to exercise a degree of control over the emotiona l activities of employers (Hochschild, 1983). During his theory it’s argued that the commodification process service workers become estranged from their own personal feeling within the workplace. The display of emotion is the single and most important factor when working in a bar setting, because if I am happy and enjoying my job then the atmosphere when people walk into the venue is positive. This can substantially impact on the sales for the night if people show negative emotion, through arguing or disagreeing with customers. Even showing my tiredness because of the long night hours, or talking about negative about customers or events. When relating the theory to my personal experience at OMG Bristol, it is apparently clear that because the role is labor intensive and required not only face to face contact but also voice to voice. Therefore this can substantially have an impact on the way a person perceives their emotions within the workplace. Personally we are traine d like in the army, always having the same phrase repeated†¦ â€Å"The customer is always right†, because of this you must always try and keep the customer happy. Within the line of work I do, there is always someone watching over you, whether it’s on the CCTV or in person. So the way I act must be correct at all times†¦ therefore it can be difficult to distinguish what I am actually feeling, and the emotion I am displaying, whether it be cognitive, bodily or expressive. When looking at the criticisms of this theory, I believe that the emotional labor requirements could be more alienating for employees, because it takes away their individuality, and doesn’t let their personality show. Because of this its like there are all the same, even though it shows consistencies it doesn’t allow the employees chance to be themselves. The job role doesn’t involve doing the job efficiently, but also ensuring that the employee doesn’t act i n a certain way and must follow the guide-lines of the company. So to conclude on my criticisms of this theory, I believe that the emotional labor changes depending on the industry, airlines may have different emotional requirements, compared to industries such as bar tending and night club work. Because of this the overall theory is subject to the individual industry. Also the control managers have on their employees can cause increased stress levels and make the work more strenuous because employees are always adjusting their emotions to fit the needs of the organisation. This is what I have interpreted according to Hochschild’s theory (1983). References: Bassett-Jones, Nigel, and Geoffrey C. Lloyd. Does Herzbergs motivation theory have staying power?. Journal of management Development 24.10 (2005): 929-943. Entwistle, Noel. Motivational factors in students’ approaches to learning. Learning strategies and learning styles. Springer US, 1988. 21-51. Hoch schild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hochschild, Arlie (1983). â€Å"The Managed Heart†. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. ISBN9780520239333. Schulze, Salomà ©, and G. M. Steyn. Educators motivation: Differences related to gender, age and experience. ACTA ACADEMICA-UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE 35.3 (2003): 138-160. Teck-Hong, Tan, and Amna Waheed. HERZBERGS MOTIVATION-HYGIENE THEORY AND JOB SATISFACTION IN THE MALAYSIAN RETAIL SECTOR: THE MEDIATING EFFECT OF LOVE OF MONEY. Asian Academy of Management Journal 16.1 (2011). Word Count: 1,318 Student Number: 13021444 Name: Jordan Levi Saile Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Reflective Assignment Motivation" essay for you Create order

Revisiting the Juvenile Offenders in Adult Criminal Justice System Free Essays

The statistics are striking. In 2002 alone, one in twelve murders in the U. S. We will write a custom essay sample on Revisiting the Juvenile Offenders in Adult Criminal Justice System or any similar topic only for you Order Now involved a juvenile offender (Snyder and Sickmund p. 65). Half of high school seniors (51%) surveyed in 2003 said they had tried illicit drugs at least once (Snyder and Sickmund p. 75). About 9% of murders in the U. S. were committed by youth under 18 in 2000 and an estimated 1561 youth under the age of 18 were arrested for homicide in 2000 (Fox). Youth under 18 accounted for about 15% of violent crime arrests in 2001 (FBI). One national survey found that for every teen arrested, at least 10 were engaged in violence that could have seriously injured or killed another person. (US Dept. of Health and Human Services). The alarming numbers continue but leave a question mark on the propensity and effectiveness of existing US juvenile laws, pushing for an inclination towards adopting adult justice systems in youth offender cases. Yet, alongside these figures are far more alarming statistics. While juvenile crimes are persistent, it is also true that one of every four violent crime victims known to law enforcement is a juvenile (Snyder and Sickmund p. 31). Suicide is the third leading cause of death among teenagers. In fact, 1921 young people ages 10 to 19 died by suicide in the United States in 2000 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). In fact, about 1 in 11 high-school students say they have made a suicide attempt in 1999(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention p. 6). And, officials have reported that of the more than 2,800 sexual violence allegations in juvenile facilities in 2004, 3 in 10 were substantiated (Snyder and Sickmund p. 230). A juvenile offender is one who is considered too young to be tried as an adult. Typically, the age at which a person can be tried as an adult varies among states, but ordinarily, it is the age of seventeen or eighteen, although this age can go down for certain serious offenses, such as homicide or sexual assault (Larson). When charged with a criminal offense, a juvenile is sent to a juvenile court where he may either waive his right and be tried under adult criminal systems. Ideally and ordinarily, the focus is on what will rehabilitate the juvenile, rather than on punishment. For juvenile offenses, the juvenile are often said to have committed a â€Å"delinquent act,† as opposed to a â€Å"criminal offense. † (Larson). Although the juvenile court has broad discretion to tailor a sentence to the needs of a young offender this juveniles are still sentenced to prison. In fact, many states have large juvenile prisons and treatment facilities. The principle is that that the present criminal justice system believes that some juvenile offenders are very dangerous, despite their age, that incarceration seemed to be appropriate. While most of the policymakers and the press claim that an increase in the youth population shall also result in the rate of juvenile offenses, a lot of considerations need to be addressed. Justifications, as will be discussed later, however, boil down to one conclusion- when a juvenile commits an adult crime, he should not be required to face the consequences as an adult. In an effort to derive justifications why youth offenders should not be tried under adult criminal justice systems, several propositions are laid out below based on recent studies: 1. Youth are developmentally different from adults; 2. Incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails is dangerous to the juvenile offenders; 3. Youth incarceration in adult jails does not reduce crime rate; 4. Trying juvenile offenders and imposing death penalty to youth offenders is unconstitutional. These are discussed in detail in the following sections. Youth are developmentally different from adults The basic principle of equality of rights is commonly understood to mean that persons who are similarly situated shall be treated the same under the law. A close analysis of adult and youth offender profiles however suggests that adult and youth criminal offenders are not similarly situated so much so that existing adult justice systems should be liberally applied if not totally abolished as against juvenile offenders. Psychologists and lawyers have raised significant and recent studies in the juvenile brain in reconsidering the existing juvenile laws. An issue in point is whether a teenager who commits capital offenses can be executed or whether this would be cruel and unusual punishment, banned by the Constitution’s eighth amendment. The point is, adolescents are not morally culpable as adults because their brains are not as capable of impulse control, decision-making, and reasoning as adult brains are. Psychologists say that this is because the brain’s frontal lobe, which exercises restraint over impulsive behavior, â€Å"doesn’t begin to mature until 17 years of age,† says neuroscientist Ruben Gur of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. â€Å"The very part of the brain that is judged by the legal system process comes on board late. † Other than this, adults behave differently not just because they have different brain structures, but because they use the structures in a different way ( Beckman ). Because of these social and biological reasons, an article in Times Magazine read, â€Å"teens have increased difficulty making mature decisions and understanding the consequences of their actions. † With much of these studies leaning towards the immediate fact that juveniles are not as mentally developed as the adult offenders, it is but proper that minors should never be tried as adults and should be spared the death penalty. Incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails is dangerous to the juvenile offenders It is a fact that despite a federal law preventing juveniles from adult jails existing for over three decades, 7,500 youth are in adult jails, according to a report released by the Campaign for Youth Justice. It must be reconsidered that rather than rehabilitating the youth offenders, incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails poses more danger to the juvenile. In fact, they are exposed to these dangers even before they’ve had their day in court (Campaign for Youth Justice). Incarceration exposes the youthful offender to sexual assault. Officials reported that of more than 2,800 sexual violence allegations in juvenile facilities in 2004, 3 in 10 were substantiated with girls more likely than boys to be sexually victimized (Snyder and Sickmund p. 229). In 2005, 21% of all substantiated victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence were under eighteen years old, even though youth make up less than 1% of the total jail population (Campaign for Youth Justice). Likewise, incarceration in adult are at greater risk of suicide than similar youth in theU. S. population (Snyder and Sickmund p. 229). In fact, youth have the highest suicide rates of all inmates in jails. â€Å"They are 36 times more likely to commit suicide in an adult jail than in a juvenile detention facility, and 19 times more likely to commit suicide in an adult jail than youth in the general population† (Campaign for Youth Justice). Finally, jailing juveniles in adult facilities are counterproductive and even increases their likelihood of reoffending. Based on studies, children who are prosecuted in adult court are more likely to be rearrested more often and more quickly for serious offenses(Campaign for Youth Justice). Youth incarceration in adult jails does not reduce crime rate While it is true that juvenile population in the US is increasing similarly to other segments of the population such that population projections indicate that the juvenile proportion of the U. S. population will hold constant through 2050 (Snyder and Sickmund p. 2), it is not true that this increase would also result in the increase in juvenile crime rate. In an analysis conducted based on official crime statistics of youth offenders in California from 1970 to 1998, Macallair and Males said that â€Å"the popular claim that the rising teenage population means more crime and violence is a myth† (2000). According to them, the current crime trends among youths are indication of declining crime rates into the next century and suggest a reevaluation of current trends in youth crime policies and reexamination of popular assumptions based on these statistics. Death penalty to juvenile crimes is unconstitutional The truth of the matter is that all states in the US now allow certain juveniles to be tried in criminal court or otherwise face adult sanctions (Snyder and Sickmund p. 110). More over, the federal consititutionality of the American juvenile death penalty was a reasonably settled issue for the past 15 years. This is a serious matter that poses more danger to juvenile offenders in facing adult consequences. It is a good thing however, that the United States Supreme Court has now expressed a renewed interest in reconsidering this issue with state courts getting more involved as well. In Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held that â€Å"executions of offenders age 15 and younger at the time of their crimes are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution† (Death Penalty Information Center). In Simmons v. Roper, 112 S. W. 3d 397 (Mo. 2003), the Supreme Court of Missouri interpreted current national data to hold that the death penalty for juvenile offenders now violates the United States Constitution’s prohibition against Cruel and Unusual Punishment. They however did not reach the issue under the Missouri State Constitution. Although a ruling on federal constitutionality, Simmons applies only in Missouri at this juncture. In the meantime, the two prevailing issues before the Supreme Court is whether the lower court can subsequently reinterpret and reject the standards under evolving standards of decency once the United States Supreme Court sets the Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual standard and whether death penalty for a 17-year-old offender is now Cruel and Unusual under the Eighth Amendment’s evolving standard of decency (Death Penalty Information Center). In 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court (5-4) upheld the Missouri Supreme Court and banned the death penalty for juvenile offenders, Roper v. Simmons (2005). With this as precedence, it is but due time for states to also reconsider the adverse consequences of juvenile commitment in adult prisons. Conclusion With all the issues raised above, it is but appalling why juvenile offenders should be tried under adult criminal justice systems. It is but due time that existing state policies be revisited and amended to adjust to the need of youthful offenders. In the meantime, since the present state policies on juvenile offenders are already in place, it is only but fitting to reconsider some adjustments in existing policies if at least to address and prevent these dangers until such time that the federal and state systems are ready for the new, more effective and revitalized policies. In referring to the special circumstance of juvenile offenders, the following recommendations were given in an ABA Task Force Report in 2001: †¢ Since youth are developmentally different from adults, these developmental differences need to be taken into account at all stages and in all aspects of the adult criminal justice system. †¢ Pretrial release or detention decisions regarding youth awaiting trial in adult criminal court should reflect their special characteristics. †¢ If detained or incarcerated, youth in the adult criminal justice system should be housed in institutions or facilities separate from adult facilities until at least their eighteenth birthday. †¢ Youth detained or incarcerated in the adult criminal justice system should be provided programs which address their educational, treatment, health, mental health, and vocational needs. †¢ The right to counsel in the adult criminal justice system should not be waived by a youth without consultation with a lawyer and without a full inquiry into the youth’s comprehension of the right and capacity to make the choice intelligently, voluntarily and understandingly. If the right to counsel is voluntarily waived, stand-by counsel should always be appointed. †¢ Judges in the adult criminal justice system should consider the individual characteristics of the youth during sentencing. †¢ The collateral consequences normally attendant to the adult criminal justice process should not necessarily apply to all youth arrested for crimes committed before the age of eighteen. (ABA p. 2) In sum, trying youth offenders under the adult criminal justice system â€Å"is not safe, is not fair and does not work† (Youth for Justice p. 4) and should therefore be guarded against. Rather than considering the youth as vices of the community, they should be looked upon as needing of society’s support. Works Cited Beckman, Mary. â€Å"Crime, Culpability and the Adolescent Brain. † Death Penalty Information Center. 30 July 2004. Science Magazine. 10 March 2008. http://www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/article. php? scid=17did=1112 â€Å"7,500 Youth in Adult Jails: Report, Young People at Risk of Assault, Suicide; Frequently Held Pre-Trial. † Campaign for Youth Justice. Press Release. 11 March 2008. http://www. campaignforyouthjustice. org/national_reports. html. â€Å"Crime in the United States 2001. † Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2002. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Table 41. 12 March 2008. http://www. fbi. gov/ucr/cius_01/01crime. pdf. â€Å"Data Source: NCHS National Vital Statistics System for numbers of deaths, U. S. Bureau of Census for population estimates. Statistics compiled using WISQARSTM produced by the Office of Statistics and Programming, NCIPC, CDC. † Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 10 March 2008. http://www. cdc. gov/ncipc/osp/data. htm. Fox, James Alan. , Zawitz, Marianne W. â€Å"Homicide Trends in the United States. † US Department of Justice. 2002. Northeastern University and Bureau of Justice Statistics. 11 March 2008. http://www. ojp. usdoj. gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd. htm. Larson, Aaron. â€Å"Juvenile Offenders. † LawExperts. March 2000. 10 March 2008. (http://www. expertlaw. com/library/criminal/juvenile_law. html). Snyder, Howard N. , and Sickmund, Melissa. â€Å"Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. † Death Penalty Information Center. 2006. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 11 March 2008 (http://www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/article. php? did=204scid=27). Wallis, Claudia and Dell, Kristina. â€Å"What Makes Teens Tick; A flood of hormones, sure. But also a host of structural changes in the brain. Can those explain the behaviors that make adolescence so exciting–and so exasperating? † Death Penalty Information Center. 10 May 2004. Time Magazine. 10 March 2008. http://www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/article. php? scid=27did=977. â€Å"Youth in the Criminal Justice System: An ABA Task Force Report. † American Bar Association. February 2002. Criminal Justice Section. 9 March 2008. http://www. abanet. org/crimjust/juvjus/jjpolicies/YCJSReport. pdf â€Å"Youth risk behavior surveillance – United States, 2001. † Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2002. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries. June 28, 2002. MMWR, 51(SS-4), p. 6. 10 March 2008. http://www. cdc. gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5104a1. htm. â€Å"Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. Executive Summary. † U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2001. p. vii. Comparison of data from the Monitoring the Future Study from the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research and data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program. 11 March 2008. http://www. surgeongeneral. gov/library/youthviolence/summary. htm. How to cite Revisiting the Juvenile Offenders in Adult Criminal Justice System, Papers

Revisiting the Juvenile Offenders in Adult Criminal Justice System Free Essays

The statistics are striking. In 2002 alone, one in twelve murders in the U. S. We will write a custom essay sample on Revisiting the Juvenile Offenders in Adult Criminal Justice System or any similar topic only for you Order Now involved a juvenile offender (Snyder and Sickmund p. 65). Half of high school seniors (51%) surveyed in 2003 said they had tried illicit drugs at least once (Snyder and Sickmund p. 75). About 9% of murders in the U. S. were committed by youth under 18 in 2000 and an estimated 1561 youth under the age of 18 were arrested for homicide in 2000 (Fox). Youth under 18 accounted for about 15% of violent crime arrests in 2001 (FBI). One national survey found that for every teen arrested, at least 10 were engaged in violence that could have seriously injured or killed another person. (US Dept. of Health and Human Services). The alarming numbers continue but leave a question mark on the propensity and effectiveness of existing US juvenile laws, pushing for an inclination towards adopting adult justice systems in youth offender cases. Yet, alongside these figures are far more alarming statistics. While juvenile crimes are persistent, it is also true that one of every four violent crime victims known to law enforcement is a juvenile (Snyder and Sickmund p. 31). Suicide is the third leading cause of death among teenagers. In fact, 1921 young people ages 10 to 19 died by suicide in the United States in 2000 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). In fact, about 1 in 11 high-school students say they have made a suicide attempt in 1999(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention p. 6). And, officials have reported that of the more than 2,800 sexual violence allegations in juvenile facilities in 2004, 3 in 10 were substantiated (Snyder and Sickmund p. 230). A juvenile offender is one who is considered too young to be tried as an adult. Typically, the age at which a person can be tried as an adult varies among states, but ordinarily, it is the age of seventeen or eighteen, although this age can go down for certain serious offenses, such as homicide or sexual assault (Larson). When charged with a criminal offense, a juvenile is sent to a juvenile court where he may either waive his right and be tried under adult criminal systems. Ideally and ordinarily, the focus is on what will rehabilitate the juvenile, rather than on punishment. For juvenile offenses, the juvenile are often said to have committed a â€Å"delinquent act,† as opposed to a â€Å"criminal offense. † (Larson). Although the juvenile court has broad discretion to tailor a sentence to the needs of a young offender this juveniles are still sentenced to prison. In fact, many states have large juvenile prisons and treatment facilities. The principle is that that the present criminal justice system believes that some juvenile offenders are very dangerous, despite their age, that incarceration seemed to be appropriate. While most of the policymakers and the press claim that an increase in the youth population shall also result in the rate of juvenile offenses, a lot of considerations need to be addressed. Justifications, as will be discussed later, however, boil down to one conclusion- when a juvenile commits an adult crime, he should not be required to face the consequences as an adult. In an effort to derive justifications why youth offenders should not be tried under adult criminal justice systems, several propositions are laid out below based on recent studies: 1. Youth are developmentally different from adults; 2. Incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails is dangerous to the juvenile offenders; 3. Youth incarceration in adult jails does not reduce crime rate; 4. Trying juvenile offenders and imposing death penalty to youth offenders is unconstitutional. These are discussed in detail in the following sections. Youth are developmentally different from adults The basic principle of equality of rights is commonly understood to mean that persons who are similarly situated shall be treated the same under the law. A close analysis of adult and youth offender profiles however suggests that adult and youth criminal offenders are not similarly situated so much so that existing adult justice systems should be liberally applied if not totally abolished as against juvenile offenders. Psychologists and lawyers have raised significant and recent studies in the juvenile brain in reconsidering the existing juvenile laws. An issue in point is whether a teenager who commits capital offenses can be executed or whether this would be cruel and unusual punishment, banned by the Constitution’s eighth amendment. The point is, adolescents are not morally culpable as adults because their brains are not as capable of impulse control, decision-making, and reasoning as adult brains are. Psychologists say that this is because the brain’s frontal lobe, which exercises restraint over impulsive behavior, â€Å"doesn’t begin to mature until 17 years of age,† says neuroscientist Ruben Gur of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. â€Å"The very part of the brain that is judged by the legal system process comes on board late. † Other than this, adults behave differently not just because they have different brain structures, but because they use the structures in a different way ( Beckman ). Because of these social and biological reasons, an article in Times Magazine read, â€Å"teens have increased difficulty making mature decisions and understanding the consequences of their actions. † With much of these studies leaning towards the immediate fact that juveniles are not as mentally developed as the adult offenders, it is but proper that minors should never be tried as adults and should be spared the death penalty. Incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails is dangerous to the juvenile offenders It is a fact that despite a federal law preventing juveniles from adult jails existing for over three decades, 7,500 youth are in adult jails, according to a report released by the Campaign for Youth Justice. It must be reconsidered that rather than rehabilitating the youth offenders, incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails poses more danger to the juvenile. In fact, they are exposed to these dangers even before they’ve had their day in court (Campaign for Youth Justice). Incarceration exposes the youthful offender to sexual assault. Officials reported that of more than 2,800 sexual violence allegations in juvenile facilities in 2004, 3 in 10 were substantiated with girls more likely than boys to be sexually victimized (Snyder and Sickmund p. 229). In 2005, 21% of all substantiated victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence were under eighteen years old, even though youth make up less than 1% of the total jail population (Campaign for Youth Justice). Likewise, incarceration in adult are at greater risk of suicide than similar youth in theU. S. population (Snyder and Sickmund p. 229). In fact, youth have the highest suicide rates of all inmates in jails. â€Å"They are 36 times more likely to commit suicide in an adult jail than in a juvenile detention facility, and 19 times more likely to commit suicide in an adult jail than youth in the general population† (Campaign for Youth Justice). Finally, jailing juveniles in adult facilities are counterproductive and even increases their likelihood of reoffending. Based on studies, children who are prosecuted in adult court are more likely to be rearrested more often and more quickly for serious offenses(Campaign for Youth Justice). Youth incarceration in adult jails does not reduce crime rate While it is true that juvenile population in the US is increasing similarly to other segments of the population such that population projections indicate that the juvenile proportion of the U. S. population will hold constant through 2050 (Snyder and Sickmund p. 2), it is not true that this increase would also result in the increase in juvenile crime rate. In an analysis conducted based on official crime statistics of youth offenders in California from 1970 to 1998, Macallair and Males said that â€Å"the popular claim that the rising teenage population means more crime and violence is a myth† (2000). According to them, the current crime trends among youths are indication of declining crime rates into the next century and suggest a reevaluation of current trends in youth crime policies and reexamination of popular assumptions based on these statistics. Death penalty to juvenile crimes is unconstitutional The truth of the matter is that all states in the US now allow certain juveniles to be tried in criminal court or otherwise face adult sanctions (Snyder and Sickmund p. 110). More over, the federal consititutionality of the American juvenile death penalty was a reasonably settled issue for the past 15 years. This is a serious matter that poses more danger to juvenile offenders in facing adult consequences. It is a good thing however, that the United States Supreme Court has now expressed a renewed interest in reconsidering this issue with state courts getting more involved as well. In Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held that â€Å"executions of offenders age 15 and younger at the time of their crimes are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution† (Death Penalty Information Center). In Simmons v. Roper, 112 S. W. 3d 397 (Mo. 2003), the Supreme Court of Missouri interpreted current national data to hold that the death penalty for juvenile offenders now violates the United States Constitution’s prohibition against Cruel and Unusual Punishment. They however did not reach the issue under the Missouri State Constitution. Although a ruling on federal constitutionality, Simmons applies only in Missouri at this juncture. In the meantime, the two prevailing issues before the Supreme Court is whether the lower court can subsequently reinterpret and reject the standards under evolving standards of decency once the United States Supreme Court sets the Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual standard and whether death penalty for a 17-year-old offender is now Cruel and Unusual under the Eighth Amendment’s evolving standard of decency (Death Penalty Information Center). In 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court (5-4) upheld the Missouri Supreme Court and banned the death penalty for juvenile offenders, Roper v. Simmons (2005). With this as precedence, it is but due time for states to also reconsider the adverse consequences of juvenile commitment in adult prisons. Conclusion With all the issues raised above, it is but appalling why juvenile offenders should be tried under adult criminal justice systems. It is but due time that existing state policies be revisited and amended to adjust to the need of youthful offenders. In the meantime, since the present state policies on juvenile offenders are already in place, it is only but fitting to reconsider some adjustments in existing policies if at least to address and prevent these dangers until such time that the federal and state systems are ready for the new, more effective and revitalized policies. In referring to the special circumstance of juvenile offenders, the following recommendations were given in an ABA Task Force Report in 2001: †¢ Since youth are developmentally different from adults, these developmental differences need to be taken into account at all stages and in all aspects of the adult criminal justice system. †¢ Pretrial release or detention decisions regarding youth awaiting trial in adult criminal court should reflect their special characteristics. †¢ If detained or incarcerated, youth in the adult criminal justice system should be housed in institutions or facilities separate from adult facilities until at least their eighteenth birthday. †¢ Youth detained or incarcerated in the adult criminal justice system should be provided programs which address their educational, treatment, health, mental health, and vocational needs. †¢ The right to counsel in the adult criminal justice system should not be waived by a youth without consultation with a lawyer and without a full inquiry into the youth’s comprehension of the right and capacity to make the choice intelligently, voluntarily and understandingly. If the right to counsel is voluntarily waived, stand-by counsel should always be appointed. †¢ Judges in the adult criminal justice system should consider the individual characteristics of the youth during sentencing. †¢ The collateral consequences normally attendant to the adult criminal justice process should not necessarily apply to all youth arrested for crimes committed before the age of eighteen. (ABA p. 2) In sum, trying youth offenders under the adult criminal justice system â€Å"is not safe, is not fair and does not work† (Youth for Justice p. 4) and should therefore be guarded against. Rather than considering the youth as vices of the community, they should be looked upon as needing of society’s support. Works Cited Beckman, Mary. â€Å"Crime, Culpability and the Adolescent Brain. † Death Penalty Information Center. 30 July 2004. Science Magazine. 10 March 2008. http://www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/article. php? scid=17did=1112 â€Å"7,500 Youth in Adult Jails: Report, Young People at Risk of Assault, Suicide; Frequently Held Pre-Trial. † Campaign for Youth Justice. Press Release. 11 March 2008. http://www. campaignforyouthjustice. org/national_reports. html. â€Å"Crime in the United States 2001. † Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2002. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Table 41. 12 March 2008. http://www. fbi. gov/ucr/cius_01/01crime. pdf. â€Å"Data Source: NCHS National Vital Statistics System for numbers of deaths, U. S. Bureau of Census for population estimates. Statistics compiled using WISQARSTM produced by the Office of Statistics and Programming, NCIPC, CDC. † Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 10 March 2008. http://www. cdc. gov/ncipc/osp/data. htm. Fox, James Alan. , Zawitz, Marianne W. â€Å"Homicide Trends in the United States. † US Department of Justice. 2002. Northeastern University and Bureau of Justice Statistics. 11 March 2008. http://www. ojp. usdoj. gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd. htm. Larson, Aaron. â€Å"Juvenile Offenders. † LawExperts. March 2000. 10 March 2008. (http://www. expertlaw. com/library/criminal/juvenile_law. html). Snyder, Howard N. , and Sickmund, Melissa. â€Å"Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. † Death Penalty Information Center. 2006. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 11 March 2008 (http://www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/article. php? did=204scid=27). Wallis, Claudia and Dell, Kristina. â€Å"What Makes Teens Tick; A flood of hormones, sure. But also a host of structural changes in the brain. Can those explain the behaviors that make adolescence so exciting–and so exasperating? † Death Penalty Information Center. 10 May 2004. Time Magazine. 10 March 2008. http://www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/article. php? scid=27did=977. â€Å"Youth in the Criminal Justice System: An ABA Task Force Report. † American Bar Association. February 2002. Criminal Justice Section. 9 March 2008. http://www. abanet. org/crimjust/juvjus/jjpolicies/YCJSReport. pdf â€Å"Youth risk behavior surveillance – United States, 2001. † Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2002. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries. June 28, 2002. MMWR, 51(SS-4), p. 6. 10 March 2008. http://www. cdc. gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5104a1. htm. â€Å"Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. Executive Summary. † U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2001. p. vii. Comparison of data from the Monitoring the Future Study from the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research and data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program. 11 March 2008. http://www. surgeongeneral. gov/library/youthviolence/summary. htm. How to cite Revisiting the Juvenile Offenders in Adult Criminal Justice System, Papers

New Directions in Planning Theory free essay sample

She examines the three approaches referred to above under the rubrics of: (1) the communicative del; sometimes called the collaborative model, emphasizes the planners role in mediating among stakeholders within the planning situation (2) the new urbanism; frequently labeled neo-traditionalism, paints a physical picture of a desirable city to be obtained through planning; ; (3) and the just city, which derives from the political economy tradition, while also outcome oriented, is more abstract than the new urbanism, presenting a model of spatial relations based on equity. The Communicative Model The communicative model draws on two philosophical approaches-? American pragmatism as developed in the thought of John Dewey and Richard Rotor and the theory of communicative rationality as worked out by Judger Habeas. 5 The two strands differ somewhat in their methodologies. Neo-pragmatism tends toward empiricism. Theoretical and Practical Deficiencies In its effort to save planning from elitist tendencies, communicative planning theory runs into difficulties. The communicative model should not be faulted for its ideals of openness and diversity. We will write a custom essay sample on New Directions in Planning Theory or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page New urbanism have achieved considerable attention in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in Great Britain . Their orientation resembles that of the early planning theorists Benzene Howard, Frederic Law Limited, Patrick Geodesin their aim of using spatial relations to create a close-knit social community that allows diverse elements to interact. The new urbanism call for an urban design that includes a variety of building types, mixed uses, intermingling of housing for different income groups, and a strong privileging of the public realm CritiqueThe new urbanism is vulnerable to the accusation that its proponents oversell their product, promoting an unrealistic environmental determinism that has threaded its way throughout the history of physical planning THE JUST CITY In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific Frederica Engels (1 935, p. 54) presents the Marxian critique of utopianism: The final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in minis brains, not in mans better insight into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange.For Marx and Engels, social transformation could occur only when the times were ripe, when circumstances enabled the forces for social amelioration to attain their objectives. In their view utopian thinkers like Robert Owen and Fouri er could not succeed because they developed a social ideal that did not coincide with a material reality still dominated by capitalist interests. Only smashing the structure of class domination could create the conditions for achieving a just society.CONCLUSION In Her conclusion she defends the continued use of the just city mode and a edified form of the political-economy mode of analysis that underlies it, described below The three types of planning theory described in this essay all embrace a social reformist outlook. They represent a move from the purely critical perspective that characterized much theory in the seventies and eighties to one that once again offers a promise of a better life. Whereas reaction to technocracy and positivism shaped planning theory of that period, more recent planning thought has responded to the challenge of post- modernism.