Prepare a draft 1-2 page Conclusion (Section 7)The conclusion is 1-2 pages that offers your final summarization of your analysis. It should restate the
points made throughout the paper. It should not raise new arguments or observations not made
throughout the paper. Prepare a draft 1-paragraph Abstract (Section 1)The abstract is one paragraph that presents a complete overview of your paper. It is often best to wait
until the very end of the paper-writing process to create your abstract, as it can be compiled using
sentences from your completed draft, especially your “roadmap” paragraph (see below).
writing_an_abstract__1_.docx
roadmap_examples__1_.docx
introduction.pdf
justification.pdf
section_3__policy_summary.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Writing an Abstract
The Abstract should include the following:
•
•
•
•
A statement of current policy or state of the policy issue
Reasons for initiating changes
Pros or cons of policy
Recommended course of action & Reasoning for selecting that course of action
Every abstract MUST capture your thesis! Meaning I should be able to read your abstract and know what your thesis is
and exactly what the paper is about.
The United States government has an inherent responsibility to house and rehabilitate prisoners. Despite this, the
government has been contracting this responsibility out to private companies. Since the 1980s there has been an upward
trend of contracts between the government and private prison corporations. The use of taxpayer money to fund profit
seeking private prisons must be stopped. A review of the literature indicates that private prisons use any means
necessary to maximize their profits, offering little cost savings to the government, insufficient housing of prisoners,
and risk of increased recidivism rates. This wasteful appropriation of money ultimately falls on taxpayers and has even
greater effects on society. It is time that federal and state government end contracts with private prisons and fulfill their
duty to society by humanely housing prisoners and implementing effective rehabilitation programs.
Mandatory arrest for intimate partner violence (IPV) was implemented to standardize the response from police officers.
This policy has overall decreased the rate of IPV, while also producing more arrests of abusers. Despite this, there have
been many unintended consequences in relation to the implementation of mandatory arrest. A review of the literature
indicates that mandatory arrest for IPV has increased the rate of IPV homicides, increased the rate of dual arrest,
severely limited police discretion, while simultaneously decreasing reports of IPV. Due to the overwhelming concerns
it is recommended that a policy of preferred arrest is considered over mandatory arrest as it is a more appropriate course
of action for this problem. Preferred arrest has not been shown to increase the IPV homicide rate or the rate of dual
arrest, while still simultaneously decreasing IPV.
The juvenile justice system was created with one goal in mind: provide effective treatment and rehabilitation for troubled
youth. The system catered solely to the needs of juveniles rather than just meshing juveniles with adult offenders into the
adult court system and jails. Over time the juvenile justice system has strayed away from the original goal of rehabilitation
and moved towards highly punitive policies that increasingly waive juveniles into the adult criminal courts. Research has
shown that labeling juveniles as criminals has adverse effects and often lead to a future of crime. Putting juveniles
into the adult criminal court system has been shown to reduce rehabilitative success rates, put them in danger for
abuse, labels them as deviant, is less cost effective, and has an overall higher rate for recidivism. Juvenile to adult
waiver policies need to be abolished as they are detrimental to our youth and the society.
In the United States 2.3 million people are incarcerated, which means the United States constitutes a staggering 25% of
the world’s incarcerated population. Mandatory minimum sentencing practices account for much of this figure. A review
of the literature indicates that mandatory minimum guidelines have psychologically harmed many different
people, is not cost effective, reduces judicial discretion, and disrupts communities. Further, there is no evidence
that mandatory minimums deter crime. It is necessary for the United States Congress to take action by eliminating all
mandatory minimum sentences in favor of indeterminate sentencing and alternatives to incarceration, thereby returning
discretion to judges and prosecutors and utilizing proven methods of rehabilitation towards making mandatory minimums
a fair policy.
•
•
Note: no citations or direct quotes should be in an abstract.
Must be 250 words or less.
Roadmap Examples
The first section of this analysis provides an overview of the use of Tasers in law
enforcement. Since Tasers are considered a use of force, they should be used in accordance with
the use of force continuum. Most state and local agencies have an active Taser and use of force
policy in their respective departments that is followed strictly. The second section presents
current problems with the use of Tasers and society’s view of them. Following, the third section
analyzes and evaluates currently available information to determine if Tasers are an effective
non-lethal tool through rational choice and social disorganization theories. The final section
provides recommendations from current research to provide law enforcement officers with the
impact and safety of Taser use.
The first section of this analysis provides an overview of sex trafficking in the United
States of America through its increase in trafficked people and continued prevalence.
Establishing these facts and concerns on behalf of the victims is crucial in understanding that sex
trafficking can happen to anyone, but by improving policies it could be preventable or the means
by which are provided to victims are respectable awkward. The second section presents the
theories associated with this policy to aid in further explanation of its effects on victims and
certain mindsets they can develop by living through their trafficking. The third section discusses
evidence of how victims have survived such tragedy of sex trafficking and remain living in this
nightmare due to lack of protection through the policies in place. Some remain in poor economic
standings while others continue to be victimized and shamed throughout their lives due to being
captured and forced into this trade. The fourth and final section outlines the research required to
improve the policies in place so as to benefit and protect those victims of sex trafficking more
and provide them with the right means to move forward.
In the following pages the effects of a 2014 campus carry law are explored through the
words of faculty working at a university that allows individuals who have a special permit to
carry concealed firearms on campus. To begin, the literature on academic freedom and its legal
standing are explored. Then the discourse surrounding the guns on campus debate is examined,
with a particular focus on faculty perceptions regarding how guns in the classroom may impact
the learning environment. Next the methods of the study are outlined, including a breakdown of
the coding scheme used for the qualitative data collected from the two open ended questions
included at the end of the survey. Then the data is presented. In this section the reported impact
of guns on campus is broken into three categories: effects on the free exchange of ideas, the
breakdown of faculty-student relationships, and faculty morale. Following this, a summary of the
findings, limitations of the study, as well as future directions is provided.
Christine Wills
CRJ 4970
Introduction
Mental illness is very prevalent in the United States corrections system. In fact so
prevalent, that the number of inmates with serious mental illness in prison outnumbers the
mentally ill patients in hospitals tenfold. According to the National Institutes of Health, it has
been reported that mental illnesses in the United States are common. Statistics show that in the
US millions are affected each year. Unfortunately, data suggests only 50% of those diagnosed
with a mental illness actually receive some form of treatment. Research has shown that people
with mental illness in crisis are more likely to be arrested than to receive medical help leading to
nearly 2 million mentally ill individuals being arrested each year. It is estimated that 15% of
males and 30% of females arrested have a major mental illness (Carroll “Serious Mental Illness
Prevalence in Jails and Prisons” 2016).
The cost of mental health care in prisons is exponentially high, and not all inmates
receive the treatment they need. According to the Bureau of Prisons, more than 70 million was
spent on clinical psychology services in 2016 and more than 5 million on pharmacological
treatments. Additionally, another 4 million went toward mental health services in reentry centers.
Even with the increasing tax dollars spent on treating mentally ill inmates, the rate of recidivism
remains high. In an effort to curve this, the Department of Justice, as well as the Department of
Health and Human Service’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration have
been working with experts in mental health and criminal justice on a framework for correctional
agencies to reduce the rate of recidivism among the highest risk mentally ill inmates. The cost of
caring for mentally ill inmates is high, yet not all of them are receiving the treatment they need
(Gonzalez & Connell “Mental health of prisoners: identifying barriers to mental health treatment
and medication continuity. American journal of public health”, 2014).
Evidence suggests that Position Statement 56 shows that the correctional system is
ineffective at providing adequate mental health care to inmates because of inadequate funding,
understaffed with health care workers, and undereducated corrections officers on how to deal
with inmates with mental health issues, and as a result, it is recommended that inmates with
mental illnesses are given specific rights such as the right to adequate medical and mental health
care, informed consent to treatment, to refuse treatment, including psychotropic medications, on
the same basis as any other person, and more. This paper will discuss the difficulties with access
to mental health care and inmate right, how treatments are administered in correctional facilities,
and the costs of mental health treatment in correctional facilities.
Research Justification
Many Americans today suffer from mental illness. Approximately 1 in 5 adults are
included in this and it still is not treated properly outside of correctional facilities, let alone
within the facilities as there are many challenges. Many offenders suffer from some form of
mental illness, that if not treated most can be expected to commit some type of crime again and
return back to jail or prison. While incarcerated mentally ill inmates can create behavioral
management problems that result in their isolation this can result in mentally ill inmates remain
in incarceration longer than other inmates. Doing research and going more in-depth on this topic
could possibly bring about new ways to treat these illnesses and prevent those who suffer from
them from offending and/or re-offending.
The topic of research for this paper problem is mental illness in correctional facilities. To
be more specific Position Statement 56: Mental Health Treatment in Correctional Facilities. The
reader should care about this because it is an ongoing issue that affects all correctional facilities
in the United States because many people suffer from some kind of mental illness. The cost of
treating mentally ill inmates is high. In 2003 a report on Texas correctional facilities reported the
average prisoner costs approximately 22,000.00 per year per inmate and for those with mental
health problems the cost can range from 30,000- 50,000.00 per year per inmate. The literature
has stated that the largest provider of mental health services in the US is the correctional system,
and yet there are still many limitations to access to mental health care for inmates, regardless of
court mandates. The question to begin investigating the problem is ‘How are mental health
problems identified and treated in a correctional facility?’
Jodi De Angelo-Kipp is the Warden at Woodland Center Correctional Facility located in
Livingston County, MI. This facility is a security level I & IV facility, housing males aged 18
and greater. This facility houses the Inpatient Mental Health and Crisis Stabilization Program for
the MDOC. Warden DeAngelo has already allowed the use of the information from her
department for this research paper.
Christine Wills
Capstone
Policy Summary
Policy Origins
In the past decade, mental illness in correctional facilities has become an important topic
with difficulties and problems that need to be addressed. In Plata v. Brown, filed in 2001, the
State conceded that deficiencies in prison medical care violated prisoners’ Eighth Amendment
rights and stipulated to a remedial injunction. But when the State had not complied with the
injunction by 2005, the court appointed a Receiver to oversee remedial efforts. Three years later,
the Receiver described continuing deficiencies caused by overcrowding. The judges in both
actions granted the request, and the cases were consolidated before a single three-judge court.
After hearing testimony and making extensive findings of fact, the court ordered California to
reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity within two years (“BROWN v.
PLATA”, 2011). Due to this case, mental health and treatment in correctional facilities have
become an increasingly important issue. As a result, in 2011, the policy of Proposition Statement
56: Mental Health Treatment in Correctional Facilities was created. This policy states when
prisoners in need of mental health treatment must be confined in correctional facilities, they are
entitled to specific rights while incarcerated.
Policy Description
This policy goes over the rights to healthcare and treatment for inmates in correctional
facilities. People with mental health and substance use conditions need a system to protect
themselves and preserve their human rights if and when they are incarcerated. When prisoners in
need of mental health treatment must be confined in correctional facilities, they are entitled to the
following: The right to adequate medical and mental health care, to protection from harm
including staff abuse, and to a facility in which the vulnerable can be protected: a safe, sanitary
and humane environment (“Position Statement 56: Mental Health Treatment in Correctional
Facilities”, 2015). This Policy and those involved work to inform the community about the
number of inmates with mental illnesses and addictive disorders that are incarcerated and the
difficulties involved in providing care to these people and develop and advocate for different
strategies addressing these problems.
Policy Goals
The goals of this policy and others like it are to inform members of law enforcement,
judges and attorneys, mental health professionals, prisoners and their families, the community
and the media about the excessive number of persons with mental illnesses and addictive
disorders in prisons and jails. Proposition 56 also works to inform those about the inherent
difficulties involved in providing decent and humane care to such persons in these settings and
should develop and advocate for effective strategies addressing these problems. Using different
resources to work with prison reform groups to highlight the treatment and conditions of inmates
with mental health conditions and to ensure that everyone with mental health conditions receives
decent and humane mental health services while incarcerated (“Position Statement 56: Mental
Health Treatment in Correctional Facilities”, 2015). Success for this policy can be measured in a
number of ways. One way is in the enhanced wellbeing of both prisoners with mental disorders
and of the prison population, making correctional facilities a working environment that advances
the general confidence and psychological well-being of jail staff. Another is the decrease of
possible reoffending and returning to incarceration by helping occupy individuals with mental
illnesses from jail to treatment and recovery. Lastly, it can be seen in fewer expenses for
correctional facilities. Those involved should work with prison reform groups to highlight the
treatment and conditions of a person with mental health conditions in prisons and jails and to
ensure that everyone with a mental health condition receives decent and humane mental health
services while incarcerated (“Position Statement 56: Mental Health Treatment in Correctional
Facilities”, 2015).
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
