Educational psychology Essay Example for Free

Educational psychology Essay Assessment is the process of collecting, interpreting, and synthesising information in order to make decisions about students; provide learners feedback about their progress and their strengths and weaknesses; judge instructional effectiveness and inform educational policy (American Federation of Teachers, et al. , 1990 as cited in Gage and Berliner, 1998). On the other hand, motivation is simply what moves learners from boredom to interest so that they continue learning. It arouses and directs learner’s activities towards learning over time. Assessments can motivate learners if teachers and students roles are effectively performed. For instance, the role of a teacher can be designing tasks in a way that learners can complete with reasonable amount of effort. Difficult tests should be divided into subgroups that are achievable without excessive effort. The role of the teacher even includes ability to inform learners in advance about the nature of the assessments. In this way, assessments are able to motivate student’s effort to learn. Furthermore, Nicholls (1999) as cited in Stepleton (2001) states assessments will motivate learners if they are not seen as a form of torture to the students. The teacher should ensure that students understand that assessments are only meant to assist learners towards achievement of effective learning and attainment of educational goals. If students understand this, they will value assessments and form a positive attitude towards assessments there by getting motivated to learn. Assessments, if used judicially as in grading t tests and scoring of marks, can motivate learners to learn (Gage and Berliner, 1998). Similarly, it is pointed out that given that learners are labelled on the basis of assessments and that these labels create expectations about learner’s ability, characteristics and educational competence. Teachers have to be careful in labelling students. Stepleton (2001) states that according to self-fulfilment prophecy theory, students learn to behave in line with the label or characteristic that has been applied to them. Hence, if assessments are to motivate students, teachers must avoid labelling learners as poor, dull, incompetent or failures on the basis of quantitative results of assessments in the class. If a student feels the teacher knows him or her as an underperformer, the learner may cling to that mentality. On the other hand, good labels such as excellent, good and wonderful should be encouraged and used appropriately to increase motivation on the students learning efforts.

Arguments for and Against Juvenile Courts

Arguments for and Against Juvenile Courts Introduction In the United States we have two parallel systems that deal with individuals that commit crimes and or offenses against society. First we have the criminal justice system, a court which deals with adults who commit various crimes. Secondly, we have the juvenile justice system, a court designed especially for minors and is generally thought to help rehabilitate the offender. The salient difference between these two systems, as Mitcheal Ritter puts it, is the use of distinct terminology to refer to their similar procedures. State and federal legislatures intended this terminological variation to avoid stigmatizing children as criminals and to dissociate the juvenile system from the criminal justice system (Ritter 2010, 222). The major issue I intend to look at it is whether or not we should abolish the juvenile justice system. First, we will look at the position of keeping the current system, why it needs to stay in place, and why in the long run it is the most beneficial to the juvenile. Second, we will examine the research of Barry Feld, one of the most influential advocates on why it needs to be abolished because of the lack of constitutional rights that a juvenile does not receive while being tried under the Juvenile justice system. Thirdly, I will be looking at each partys positions and critiquing it to see it what the strong and weak points are. Finally, I will present my own opinion on whether to keep it, abolish it, or create a whole new system altogether. Presentation of Position A: Do Not Abolish the Juvenile System To try a juvenile in adult court is by no means the right decision. In this section we will look at evidence and arguments on why the juvenile justice system should not be abolished. Juveniles are different from adults and therefore should not be allowed to stand trial in the criminal justice system. Children are not well enough developed mentally, as compared to an adult, to be tried in the adult correctional system. This is why many people take the stance, no way should we get rid of the juvenile justice system. The director of the states (Washington) Bureau of Juvenile Detention Services is seeking to keep 16- and 17-year-old offenders out of the states criminal justice system (McNeil 2008). To lock up a child in an adult correction facility is by no means the right idea even if they are separate from the adults. If a juvenile commits an adult crime like robbery, theft or in most cases drug crimes, a quick fix is to incarcerate that individual in an adult prison to punish him and protect society. While this may work for adults, it is inappropriate for a youth. Advocates argue that we must keep the juvenile justice system because many studies also have found that significantly harsher punishments are meted out to juveniles in adult court when compared with juveniles in juvenile court, particularly for serious or violent offenses (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 727). Sending a juvenile to adult court at such a young age can be problematic for the child, because the court wants to be strict with the child by showing them that their behavior will not be tolerated and because in adult court the child will miss out on educational and rehabilitative programs more readily available in juvenile detention facilities. Kurlycheck and Johnson argue that Juvenile courts are characterized by disposition optio ns that fundamentally differ from adult courts in their symbolic meaning, punitive and treatment alternatives, and punishment goals (2010). In a study in Pennsylvania, Kurlycheck and Johnson compared a sample of juveniles tried in juvenile court with juveniles who were transferred to adult court and showed that the adult courts were harsher on the juvenile: On average, their sentences were 80 percent more severe than for their young adult counterparts (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 729). Juveniles should not be allowed to be tried in adult court because studies have shown that many juveniles function at levels similar to disabled adults who lack competence; not because of diagnosable mental health problems, but because of developmental immaturity (Katner 2006, 507). The theory that sentencing a youth to an adult prison will reduce recidivism and hope that the experience will scare him straight, is invalid. Research shows that experiences with adult jails and prisons show that those facilities may instill fear but are otherwise emotionally-and often physically-dangerous for youth (Butler 2011, 114). Finally, Frank Zimring argued that young law violators are less culpable, and thus deserve less punishment-no matter what kind of court might try and sentence them (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 729). Kurlycheck and Johnson also confirm what Katner is saying by explaining that adolescents are at psychosocial disadvantages in terms of responsibility, peer influence, temperan ce, and perspective; they are less able to foresee future consequences of their actions (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 729). Youths in the detention system have an average IQ of 85, as compared to the national average of 100, and about 60% in detention meet the criteria for at least one mental disorder (Butler 2011, 111). Research by Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., director of Systems Research at the National Center of Juvenile Justice, shows that 68% of committed males were diagnosed with a mental health disorder, and research indicates that the percentage is greater for females in commitment facilities, 50% of committed males had a substance abuse diagnosis (Katner 2006, 509). If a youth has a mental illness then it is our responsibility to address those needs. A state has no right to refuse adjudicated juveniles. It is the juvenile justice systems legal and ethical responsibility to admit them, and make provisions for their safe and secure care and treatment (Smith 2012). The American Public Health Association found in their Cox proportional hazard study that better mental health services reduced the risk of initial and subsequent juvenile justice involvement by 31% (Foster, Qaseem, and Connor, 2004) and had stronger results with more serious offenders. Their findings said that improved mental health ser vices reduced the risk of juvenile justice involvement (Foster, Qaseem, and Connor, 2004). We must remember that the juvenile justice system is meant to reduce recidivism, help the individual with their struggles, and integrate them back into the community. When a juvenile offender is reintegrated into the community after a year being counseled, treated, and taught, the community is safer than it would be if that same delinquent youth were incarcerated for five years and released with no preparation to respect himself and society and to avoid repeating the same behavior. In Missouri, for example, only 8 percent of juvenile delinquents return to the justice system within three years; the national average is over 50 percent (House 2010). Decreasing recidivism has both immediate and long-term benefits. It has been estimated that juveniles who become adult offenders cost society between $1.5 and $1.8 million each (Macomber, Skiba, Blackmon, Esposito, Hart, Mambrino, Richie, Grigorenko 2010, 224). Therefore, successful education is one of the most important tools that a juvenil e can have while locked up. According to the Journal of Correctional Education, quality education and successful employment is viewed, unequivocally, as the most powerful tool in recidivism reduction, rehabilitation of juvenile delinquent [à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦]into a socially productive, healthy, and happy adult (Macomber, Skiba, Blackmon, Esposito, Hart, Mambrino, Richie, Grigorenko 2010, 225). However, the article does note that the level of education that is delivered to juveniles while incarcerated is nationally recognized as being far from as effective as it should be. Society wants our youths to succeed, be successful, and be normal members of society. That is why many advocates believe in keeping them out of the criminal justice system because they want to help bring these individuals back into society. Advocates for this system believe that juvenile justice systems are the best because once a juvenile is locked up in an adult correctional system, that individual will have a criminal record that follows them for life, which would not be the case if they had been tried in family court (McNeil 2008). Once a child is labeled as a criminal in society (labeling theory,) not only will it be hard for him to apply for a job with his adult criminal record, he will also carry the label of criminal over his head while back in society. Presentation of Position B: Abolish the Juvenile System In this section we will be looking at why it is a good idea to abolish the juvenile justice system. Barry Feld is one of the major advocates for abolishing the juvenile justice system. He believes the system should be thrown out because juveniles are frequently not afforded their constitutional rights in juvenile court. Barry Feld, a law professor from the U of M and an expert on the juvenile justice system, says the juvenile justice system needs to be abolished. He claims that within the past three decades, judicial decisions, legislative amendments, and administrative changes have transformed the juvenile court from a nominally rehabilitative social welfare agency into a scaled-down, second-class criminal court for young people. These reforms have converted the historical ideal of the juvenile court as a social welfare institution into a penal system that provides young offenders with neither therapy nor justice (Feld 1997, 68). In light of these failures, Feld is proposing that the juvenile court be integrated into the traditional criminal court system. Feld talks about how the juvenile justice system lacks constitutional rights for youth offenders. Several important Supreme Court decisions help change and shape the criminalization of the juvenile court. In the case of In Re Winship,the court required states to prove juvenile delinquency by criminal laws standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Feld 1997, 73). In the U.S. Supreme court case of In Re Gault, the court said that juveniles accused of crimes must be afforded many of the same rights that adults get. These rights would be the 5th amendment of right against self-incrimination, the 6th amendment right to confront witnesses, the right to timely notification of the charges and the right to be represented by an attorney. Even though the Supreme Court ruled this way, Feld says that lawyers seldom appeared in juvenile courts and when the juvenile was on trial the judges did not advise juveniles of their rights and did not appoint counsel (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 330). Feld ci tes two associations, the American Bar Association and American Children at risk, that reported that many youths in the juvenile justice system were not represented by counsel and of the lawyers who represented juvenile lacked adequate training and failed to provide competent representation (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 330). If this would happen in the criminal justice system, the case would risk dismissal or being overturned on appeal. Even if a juvenile does have a defense lawyer, many attorneys seldom if ever appeal the decision of the juvenile court judge. Judges are continuing to allow juvenile rights continue to be trampled upon by allowing juveniles to waive their right to an attorney without allowing them to consult with one of their parents or an attorney. Feld and Schaefer say that in most states, judges gauge juveniles waivers of rights by assessing whether they were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under the totality of the circumstances test. They rejected special procedures for youths and endorsed the adult standard to evaluate juveniles waivers of Miranda rights. When a juvenile is arrested or brought into custody, he should not be allowed to talk to anyone unless his parent or lawyer is present. Feld wants both the criminal and juvenile system to be combined into one in hopes to reduce many constitutional violations, such as a juvenile waving his right to Miranda warnings. He says that many juveniles do not understand a Miranda warning or counsel advisory well enough to make a valid waiver (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 331). This is a major risk for first time offenders because they may not know what they are agreeing to. Juveniles who have gone through the system before may start to get a grasp on the concept of Miranda about as well as adults but substantial minorities of both groups failed to grasp at least some elements of the warning (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 331). To help reduce these constitutional violations, Feld believes that state courts should adopt sentencing guidelines for juveniles, which now exist only in adult courts (Furst 1991). Feld believes that many sentences are based on where the juvenile lived than the crime (Furst, 1991). In Felds study, urban criminals face stiffer penalty, he found that urban juveniles receive harsher sentences for the same crimes than their rural and suburban counterparts (Furst 1991). Felt said that urban courts detained youths that were charged with felonies around the time; rural counties detained them one-tenth of the time and suburban counties one-thirteenth (Furst 1991). Feld says that no reasons exist to believe that rural youths are more competent than urban juveniles to waive legal rights, but rural judges appoint attorneys far less often than do their more formal, urban counterparts (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 332). Feld says that juveniles are very immature and lack a lot of experience. They requ ire the assistance of counsel to understand legal proceedings, to prepare and present a defense, to negotiate guilty pleas, and to ensure fair adjudications (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 350). How is it fair that adults can have lawyers present at their trial and not juveniles? He says that increased efforts to have lawyers present at juveniles trials have remained the same. Feld says that with his data from 1994 and 1999 have predicted the outcome for youths to receive attorneys present at trial. The data is quite surprising that youths convicted of felony and status offenses show a decrease in odds of representation, whereas youths convicted of misdemeanor offenses show an increase in the odds of having an attorney (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 349). One of the most important rights we have in our judicial system is the right to a jury trial. However, Feld argues is that while the right to a jury trial is a crucial procedural safeguard when states punish offenders, the vast majority of jurisdictions uncritically follow McKeivers lead and deny juveniles access to juries (Feld 1997, 87). When judges and juries apply Winship, the reasonable doubt standard, differently, it allows them to convict youths more easily in juvenile court than in adult criminal court with the same evidence. Feld say that the constitution as well as state juvenile statutes allow delinquents to have formal trials with attorneys present. But in reality the actual quality of representation that the juvenile receives is far from optimum. One of his reasons for abolishing the juvenile justice system is because the criminalization of juvenile courts, most states provide neither special procedures to protect youths from their own immaturity nor the full panoply of adult procedural safeguards. Instead, states treat juveniles just like adult criminal defendants when treating them equally places youth at a practical disadvantage (Feld 1997, 87). Feld argues that some scholars believe that rehabilitative juvenile court or a juvenile version of a criminal court simply will not work as their supporters intend (Crawford 2001). Because of this, Felt proposes that an integrated criminal court would be a better solution. He believes this model is the best because society recognizes youths as being less mature and more susceptible to peer influence (Crawford 2001) so the court could offer what he calls youth discounts for sentencing. This would take into consideration the youths age and apply it towards his crime. In his model he is not talking about crime reduction, remove what he considers to be the drama of waivers to adult courts (Crawford 2001). Feld claims it will remove double talk and hypocrisy because justice officials claim rehabilitation as their goal when the reality of their actions is coercion and punishment (Crawford 2001). As long as the youth discount is integrated into the criminal court system, it can provide yout h offenders with better legal protection, ensure they are granted the same constitutional rights that adults get, and most importantly, that juveniles would receive humane consequences from judges. Feld agrees that youths do deserve shorter sentences compared to adults when being tried for comparable crimes. However, there does not need to be separate courts for this. Feld says that the juvenile court system will not survive because it represents a temporary way-station on the road to substantive and procedural convergence with the criminal court (Feld 1997, 132). For both of these court systems to work, Feld says there must be an integrated criminal justice that formally recognizes adolescent as a development continuum may effectively address many of the problems created by our binary conceptions of youth and social control (Feld 1997, 132). Critique of Positions Advocates for the juvenile justice system believe that juveniles should have their own court system. In order for the juveniles to be properly protected, educated and rehabilitated, there cannot be two systems. Many juveniles are not sufficiently mentally developed to stand trial in the adult court system. Recall that The American Public Health Association said that better mental health services reduced the risk of initial and subsequent juvenile justice involvement by 31% (Foster, Qaseem, and Connor, 2004). Once the juvenile entered the detention center and was given appropriate care and treatment, the risk of juvenile justice involvement in the future was reduced. Many advocates argue that we must keep the juvenile justice system because many studies à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ have found that significantly harsher punishments are meted out to juveniles in adult court when compared with juveniles in juvenile court, particularly for serious or violent offenses (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 727). The study said that of the juveniles tried in adult court, about 80% received harsher punishments compared to their youth counterparts. In order for us to have fair trial systems we cannot try youth with the same standards of adult. Advocates also believe that a juvenile should not be locked up in any adult facility because it would set the child up for more harm from stronger and more powerful adults. Research has shown that experiences with adult jails and prisons show that those facilities may instill fear but are otherwise emotionally-and often physically-dangerous for youth (Butler 2011, 114). I do not see any advantage to put a juvenile in the same cell or facility of another adult. The juvenile justice system is meant to rehabilitate the offender, not make him worse. We want the child to come out better than when he went in. In the adult court the minor would leave with a criminal record which could negatively affect his chances at getting a job once released. In juvenile court their record is usually protected. I do agree with what Feld says about having a juvenile be granted his constitutional right to an attorney, jury trial and correct understanding to Miranda warnings. He makes a big case about how juveniles are rarely granted these rights. I strongly agree with Felds statement regarding this. Many of these youth are waving their right to an attorney without the knowledge of what the consequences might be. Because some judges are allowing this to happen in the juvenile court, Feld make a convincing argument for these youth to be tried in an adult court. This may prevent any further constitutional violations. If an adult was treated this way, the case would have a high probability of being thrown out. If a juvenile is not granted these rights, there is no way he can expect a fair trial. Feld is correct that courts need to follow In Re Winship and In Re Gault. These are the rights granted to the juvenile, for a judge not to follow them would be unprofessional and most of all unconstitutio nal. Feld says that the juvenile court system will not survive because it represents a temporary way-station on the road to substantive and procedural convergence with the criminal court (Feld 1997, 132). I do not agree with this at all. In the juvenile justice system is designed help rehabilitate the offender, if the system is to work correctly; it will not be a temporary way-station. I do recognize that there are some fall backs to the system, but it needs to be run correctly. The idea of youth discounts, if implemented correctly could work. However judges might over abuse their power towards the juvenile. These youth discounts would be totally up to the discretion of the judge. This could pose a problematic issue for the youth if the judge does not follow the guidelines of youth discounts. If judges cannot follow constitutional guidelines of Winship and Gaulti do not believe they would be able to follow a rule of youth discounts. Feld has a good idea behind his youth discounts, however I do not believe judges would follow these rules. His last argument is that youths do deserve shorter sentences compared to adults when being tried for comparable crimes. If the juvenile system is abolished this concept would have to be enforce. I still see it being problematic for the child to serve time in an adult facility. We want to rehabilitate the child, not solely focus on punishing him or her. There is no telling how this system would be implemented. A judge could use this power to unfairly sentence certain youth to longer sentences the he deems necessary. As I have stated earlier, juveniles have different maturity and educational levels compared to adults. That is why many of these youths still need to be tried in a system where a judge is specialized in juvenile crimes. Authors Position Now that we have had a chance to examine the arguments for and against abolishing the juvenile system, our issue is which side should we take and why? It is difficult to pick one side, and therefore I propose a hybrid version. Using strengths from both sides, I believe we can come to a conclusion that will be most beneficial for the juvenile, and our court system, and one that will meet constitutional standards. In order to accomplish all of this we will be looking at concepts, resources, and management. Applying all three of these criteria we will be able to see why the combination of them will result in the best outcome. We will be ending the juvenile system as it currently exists, but instead of getting rid of it all together, there will be some changes to the adult system to help incorporate these new guidelines. As I have stated multiple times above, our concept of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate the offender and get the child ready to be brought back into society again. If the juvenile justice is to work correctly it would give the juvenile the necessary skills to be brought back into society. Society accepts this concept because the juvenile is still young, and society is willing to give that individual another chance. Society believes this because the juvenile is put under the obligation to grow himself/herself to be fitted to the perceived values of the society. If this is done successfully, the concept of rehabilitation has worked successfully Currently the juvenile justice system needs to be combined with parts of the adult system to work effectively. Mainly, the concept of having a fair trial is something all adults get in adult court. The juvenile justice system offers the minor educational and mental help through trained and effective services; something that the adult court rarely offers. It has also been stated that the juvenile dentation centers are better at offering rehabilitate skills through classes such as anger management which is essential to any delinquent wanting to enter society again. If the juvenile was just thrown into an adult correction facility, there is a slim chance that he would have access to the proper education that he would need. It is unlikely that the adult system has classes targeted for their needs. As I have stated earlier from the research, juveniles are far less mental and educationally developed compared to adults, that is why a system to house juveniles is still the best system. The a dult system houses individuals from 18 on up. If the delinquent is rehabilitated in a facility with individuals his own age, this might provide a better learning environment. The adult system is more focused on punishing the individual for their crimes and second, to possibly rehabilitated the adult offender. In a juvenile dentation center, their main goal is to rehabilitate the offender, not solely punish them for their crimes. Therefore, the juvenile justice system must take into account the opportunity to grow as a good person without any kind of stigma attached. Part of their rehabilitative process might involve apologizing to the victim. This would result in no father threat to the victim, and help the offender to know the impact of his crime. The last concept is if the juvenile is to be properly rehabilitated he needs to be in a safe environment, one that is targeted for his age group and level of education. While in the detention center, he or she is given the chance to learn and be properly educated, a skill that he or she might not have received while in the outside world. Barry Feld makes a convincing argument for abolishing the juvenile justice system with his argument that it does not afford the juvenile his constitutional rights. He believes that in order to fix this issue, the juvenile justice system need to be abolished and merged with the adult system. We are using Felds idea to merge the system but not abolish the resources and many benefits that come with the juvenile justice system. We will be using not one system but a hybrid of both. We must think of it as a system that only exists on paper not in different court systems. To award trial by jury, Miranda warnings, and the right to counsel only to adults does not represent a fair and balanced justice system. Juveniles must have the same rights that adults are entitled to. If an adult was arrested, questioned by police, brought to court without legal representation and informed the judge of all these violations, the case and evidence would be thrown out. That is why when creating this hybrid system we are using Felds resource of the adult court to create a new justice system for juveniles to ensure they are awarded all the rights adults are. First and foremost, juveniles must be accorded their constitutional rights. Juveniles are by definition young, inexperienced, and not as mentally and emotionally developed as adults. Special protections must be given to them to insure that they are granted their rights. Judges are continuing to allow juveniles to waive their right to Miranda when many are not aware of what they are without a parent or legal advisor. Juveniles who have gone through the system before may start to get a grasp on the concept of Miranda about as well as adults but substantial minorities of both groups failed to grasp at least some elements of the warning (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 331). Even if a lawyer was appointed, they (the lawyer) seldom appeared in juvenile courts and when the juvenile was on trial the judges did not advise juveniles of their rights and did not appoint counsel (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 330). Feld makes a major point of In Re Winship and In Re Gault (discussed above) to prove that even though these are laws exists, many courts overlook or ignore them, ultimately denying juveniles their rights to a fair trial. Constitutional rights cannot be overlooked, which is why I believe Felds argument of abolishing the juvenile justice system as it stands has merit, and the advantages of the adult system must be incorporated, without the negative consequences to juveniles. I propose that no juvenile be allowed to waive his Miranda rights without first consulting with a court appointed attorney. I further propose that no juvenile be allowed to waive his right to attorney, as can be done in adult court. Every juvenile should be represented by an attorney throughout the case. I propose that the juvenile have the right to a trial by jury in all felony offenses. If the offense is a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, the juvenile would still be tried before the juvenile court judge. In both misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor and felony level offenses, however, the dispositional alternatives would be within the traditional juvenile court system. There would be no adult sentencing in any misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor offense, and no adult sentencing for felony level offenses without the juvenile being certified to stand trial as an adult. Without good dispositional alternatives, we will not be able to make our hybrid juvenile system work. I am using this hybrid system to represent all non-serious crimes. One of the most important systems that needs to be retained is the educational system. As discussed earlier, successful education is one of the most important tools that a juvenile can have while locked up. If this is eliminated any hope of rehabilitating the juvenile goes out the window. One of the main goals of the juvenile justice system if to reduce the recidivism rate and to rehabilitate the individual with the skills necessary to return them to society. This will require enhanced special education opportunities. Many of the juveniles who are incarcerated have an average IQ of 85, as compared to national average of 100. So, even if they did attend public school, one study put their literacy skills [à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦] at least one standard deviation or two years behind (Macomber, Skiba, Blackmon, Esposito, Hart, Mam brino, Richie, Grigorenko 2010, 225) their school mates in the same grade. To make sure this educational program will work, part of what I am proposing is that the court must require these individuals to participate. Math and reading are generally key important educational programs, but the detention facility also needs to offer other programs such as anger management, developing social skill, and educational classes on a variety of areas that the juvenile might lack. If the juvenile does not agree to these terms and conditions, they will be tried in adult court and sentenced to the adult correctional facility. It is not just education that many of these juveniles lack. Some 68% of committed males were diagnosed with some kind of mental health disorder, along with 50% of committed males having a substance abuse diagnosis. If these juveniles were put into the adult program, these issues might not ever be recognized or if they were, risk a high chance of never being treated. We need to provide adequate psychological support services to those who need them. If a youth has a mental illness then it is our responsibility to address those needs. A state has no right to refuse adjudicated juveniles. It is the juvenile justice systems legal and ethical responsibility to admit them, and make provisions for their safe and secure care and treatment (Smith 2012). If these mental issues are treated right now versus in the future, it very well might drastically reduce the recidivism rate. It has been estimated that juveniles who become adult offenders cost society between $1.5 and $1.8 million each (Macom ber, Skiba, Blackmon, Esposito, Hart, Mambrino, Richie, Grigorenko 2010, 224). This will ultimately be a substantial saving to the taxpayers, free up the jail for serious offenders, and get juveniles the help that many of them desperately need. One of the

AN analysis of child labour in india

AN analysis of child labour in india Child labour has been in India from a long time in some form or the other. Practice of child labour in match box industries, glass bangle industries and is very commonly seen in cheap restaurants and dhabas etc. Generally speaking child labour can be said to be the exploitation or abuse of children in factories, industries etc, who are below the age specified by law working (mentally or physically) to earn for his/her own survival or to support his/her family partially or fully, and which prevents his/her social and education development may be said to be child labour. The reasons which are generally responsible for child labour may include  [1]  : Poverty, Ignorance, Illiteracy, Population explosion, Lack of knowledge of their own rights, Big amounts of debt on the parents, Large size of family but not enough income to support such big family, Lack of social security scheme in the country, Weak enforcement of labour laws. According to an U.N.O report India has the maximum child labour in the world i.e. approx 20 per cent.  [2]  On the basis of Census 1991 and various governmental and non-governmental organizations following are the number of child labourers in India  [3]  : Census 1991 2.63 crore, Organization research group, Baroda, 1994-95 4.44 crore, Centre for concern of Child Labour 10 crore. Extra-governmental volunteer organization more than 5 crore. The numbers may vary according to different organizations but the fact is clear that the numbers of child labourers in India are in crores, which is again a pathetic sight, especially with all the various child labour legislation and the Constitutional provisions. In a report by the Labour Ministry every 4th child is a child labour, aged between 5-14 years and there is one child labour in every three families.  [4]   But its not as if Indian governments havent done anything about this grave social stigma, over the years it has enacted many statutory legislations and Constitutional provisions in order to eradicate the problem of child labour, to name some of them, we have: Labour legislations: The Child Labour Act, 1986, The Factories Act, 1948, The Mines Act, 1952, The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children Act, 2000 Constitutional provisions  [5]  : Article 24 provides: strictly prohibits children to work in hazardous environment. Article 21, 45 gives the right to education to all the children below the age of 14years. Article 39 declares the duty of the State to provide the children a free facilities to develop in conditions of freedom and dignity in a healthy manner. India is also a party to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child, 1959. India is also a signatory to: ILO Forced Labour Convention (No. 29); ILO Abolition of Forced Labour Convention (No. 105); UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children. The Government of India adopted the National Policy for Children (NPC) in August 1974. This Policy provided that  [6]  It shall be the policy of the state to provide adequate service to children both before and after birth and through the period of their growth, to ensure their full physical, mental and social development. The State shall progressively increase the scope of such services so that, within a reasonable time, all children in the country enjoy optimum conditions for their balanced growth. Indian is also a party to United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child, 1959 and Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1992 and has formulated its labour laws in accordance to International Labour Conference resolution of 1979. The first part of the paper aims to look into the various legislations relating to child labour. In the second part we shall look into the various precedents set by the Supreme Court of India on the issue of child labour and finally the conclusion. Chapter 1 CONSTITUTIONLA AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS Constitutional provisions The government of India has enacted various labour laws has in accordance to International Labour Conference resolution of 1979. The Constitution of India, through various articles enshrined in the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy, lays down that: Article 21 (A) The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age six to 14 years; Article 24 No child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment. The word hazardous employment in Art 24 also includes construction industry, also in P.N. v. U.O.I  [7]  , it has been laid down that Art 24 is enforceable even in the absence of implementing legislations;  [8]   Article 39(e) States that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength; Article 39(f) States that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment  [9]  . Hence Art 39 in whole requires the state to ensure and protect the children and provide proper child care. Article 45 The State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years The framers of the Constitution imposed a duty on the State under Article 45 as one of the directive principles of the State Policy to provide free and compulsory education to all children until they complete the age of 14 year with the sole objective of completely eradicating illiteracy and child labour. Also many of the states had passed various Acts providing for free and compulsory primary or elementary education to children. But unfortunately years after the commencement of the Constitution the goal set by this Article which was to be achieved in 10 years, have yet not been reached. But the provision in article 39(f) and 45 of the constitution gave certain directions in providing a better quality of life of children employed in the factories. Labour legislations The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986: The Act prohibits the employment of children below the age of 14 years in 13 occupations and 51 processes that are hazardous to the childrens lives and health listed in the Schedule to the Act  [10]  . The Factories Act, 1948: The Act completely prohibits children working below the age of 14 years  [11]  . It further states that if a child is between 15 and 18 years of age, can be employed in a factory only if he has a certificate of fitness granted with reference to him under section 69 which is in the custody of the manager of the factory. The Act also says that no child shall be employed or permitted to work, in any factory for more than four and a half hours in any day; The Mines Act, 1952: The Act prohibits the employment of children in mines, who have not completed their 15th year. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children Act, 2000: This Act was last amended in 2002 in conformity with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child covers young persons below 18 years of age. Section 26 of this Act deals with the Exploitation of a Juvenile or Child Employee, and provides in relevant part, that whoever procures a juvenile or the child for the purpose of any hazardous employment and keeps him in bondage and withholds his earnings or uses such earning for his own purposes shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable for fine. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: The Act states that all children aged 6 to 14 years shall be provided free and compulsory education. It further states that all private schools should allocated 25 per cent of their seats for disadvantaged and differently abled children. Chapters 2 Precedents set by Supreme Court Though the government of India has enacted various labour legislations to prevent child labour still there are some contradiction among them, mainly the definitional debates on child labour as different legislation provide different definition of a child. Section 2(ii) of The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, defines child as a person who has not completed his fourteenth year of age; Section 2(c) of The Factories Act, 1948 defines child as a person who has not completed his fifteenth year of age; Section 2(e) of The Mines Act, 1952 defines child as a person who has not completed his fifteenth year; Section 2(c) of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, defines child as male or female child of the age of six to fourteen years; Section 2(k) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children Act, 2000 defines child as a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age; Section 2(c) of The Plantations Labour Act, 1951 defines child as a person who has not completed his fourteenth year of age Hence, we can clearly observe that these legislation are at contradiction to each other in defining whos a child and setting an uniform age limit. Therefore the centre and respective state governments should set a uniform universal minimum age of the child as these contradictions adversely affect the objective of protection from child labour and providing a better educational and social development to children of India. Following are few of important Supreme Court cases that have helped in framing better laws regarding child labour: In Democratic Rights V. Union of India  [12]  , it was contended that the Employment of Children Act, 1938 was not applicable in the matter of employment of children in construction works, as it was not mentioned in the act. But the court held even construction work is a hazardous employment and no child below the age of 14 years can be employed as given under Art 24 of the Indian Constitution, even though construction industry has not been specified in the schedule to the Employment of children Act, 1938, thus the SC rejected the contention. In Salal Hydro Project vs. Jammu and Kashmir  [13]  , the Court has restated the principle laid in Democratic Rights V. Union of India  [14]  that Construction work is hazardous employment and any child below 14 cannot be employed in this work. In Sheela Barse and others vs Union of India and others  [15]  , Bhagawati, C.J. quoted from National Policy for the welfare of Children incorporated to provide better social and educational development to the children of India : The Nations children a supremely important asset. Their nurture and solicitude are our responsibility. Childrens programme should find a prominent part in our national plans for the development of human resources, so that our children grow up to become robust citizens, physically fit, mentally alert and morally healthy, endowed with the skill and motivations needed by society. Equal opportunities for development to all children during the period of growth should be our aim, for this would serve our large purpose of reducing inequality and ensuring social justice. In M.C. Mehta v State of Tamil Nadu Ors  [16]  , the SC gave direction to the Union and state governments to identify all children and withdraw them from working in hazardous processes and occupations, and to provide them with free and proper education as incorporated into the Constitution, Artcle 21-A. The Court also directed the Union and state governments to set up a Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund using contributions from employers who breach the Child Labour Act. In Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh,  [17]  the SC held that every child has the right to free education till the age of 14 years. Artcle 21-A which was incorporated into the Constitution, reflects this standard. CONCLUSION It is said that child is the father of man, and the children of our country are our biggest asset. The government of India has enacted several laws in order to provide healthy social and educational environment for the children. But in spite of all the laws enacted, problem of child labour still persists in our Indian society that is because child labour laws are themselves flawed in some way or the other or suffer from poor implementation of programmes. Though awareness towards child labour has increased and now there are several NGOs trying their best, but today what we require is to take concrete actions, the central and respective state governments need to provide for better machinery for enforcing child labour laws. Unless this is achieved our country wont be completely free the burden of child labour.

My Philosophy of Teaching :: Philosophy of Education

Philosophy I have for several years played with the idea of becoming a teacher. I started my college education over twenty years ago and within this period of time, I have had the pleasure of raising my own children and being involved with hundreds of other children at the elementary school level, as a little league coach of basketball and softball. And the most important lesson I learned was that at this stage of a child’s life their self worth and self esteem, are so very important in the building blocks for adolescence and young adulthood. I feel that for a child with good education foundation, the sky is the limit in what they can accomplish in their lifetime. I feel that we lose so many children within our educational system by the sixth grade, because the foundation blocks are not solidly laid. We as teachers must start to rethink the material and content we are using to build these students educational foundation and make sure it is the very best we as educators can give our stude nts. As a pre-service teacher I feel that I would contribute to the education, self-esteem, and self worth of all children that would pass through my classroom. This fact alone is one of the greatest influences on me to enter the teaching profession. This makes me want to give something back. My classroom would be set up in a traditional style, desk in linear rows facing front of classroom, my desk would in a corner position so that I could observe all my students. My bulletin boards would show several different cultures of people and many different lands. Computer and Internet access would be part of my classroom supplement materials, alone with audio/visual equipment. My teaching styles would be a blending of two philosophies, I would use an eclectic style of teaching. Traditional to facilitating, essentialism to progressive, idealism and pragmatism. For I feel is the job of the teacher to create a learning environment for each an every student to make them want to learn.

Capital Punishment Essay - Death Penalty is Socially Sanctioned Murder :: Argumentative Persuasive Essays

The Death Penalty – Socially Sanctioned Murder Capital punishment is not "actual" punishment. It's a capital reaction to a type of criminal act. It serves no purpose. When a person is executed, the person learns no lesson. He or she cannot say, "Hey! I learned my lesson. I surely won't do that again," for he or she is dead. Although the word "punishment" is used in varying contexts, it is generally accepted that it is served out unpleasantly to an individual in hopes that that person learns from the punishment and, therefore, doesn't repeat the bad deed. Good grief... So, why execute? The question is one of justification. It is wrong to deliberately kill another person, yet capital punishment (or "killing") consists of doing precisely this. Cost of the Death Penalty Capital punishment in California, as in every other state, is more expensive than a life imprisonment sentence without the opportunity of parole. These costs are not the result of frivolous appeals but rather the result of Constitutionally mandated safeguards that can be summarized as follows: Juries must be given clear guidelines on sentencing, which result in explicit provisions for what constitutes aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Defendants must have a dual trial--one to establish guilt or innocence and if guilty a second trial to determine whether or not they would get the death penalty. Defendants sentenced to death are granted oversight protection in an automatic appeal to the state supreme court. These constitutional safeguards translate into: - a more extensive jury selection procedure - a four fold increase in the number of motions filed - a longer, dual trial process - more investigators and expert testimony - more lawyers specializing in death penalty litigation - and automatic, mandatory appeals Since there are few defendants who will plead guilty to a capital charge, virtually every death penalty trial becomes a jury trial with all of the above necessary requirements and expenses. In Los Angeles County, the total cost of capital punishment is $2,087,926. In Los Angeles County, the total cost of life imprisonment without possibility of parole is $1,448,935. General Studies A study done by the Sacramento Bee argued that California would save $90 million per year if it were to abolish the death penalty. The average cost of a capital trial in Texas is $2.3 million--three times the cost to incarcerate an individual for 40 years. The average cost of a capital trial in Florida is $3.2 million. Myths and Facts Deterrence Scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crime. The respected Thorsten

Oedipus Who’s fault was it? Essay

Who’s Fault Was It? If one were to look for an individual to blame in the tale of Oedipus many characters would stand out. Assigning fault on Just one character of this story would be challenging since almost every character is trying to cheat fate. If there was really one character that could have prevented all this tragic Father killing and Mother â€Å"loving† who would it be? The story spirals on in a whirlwind of destiny with each step taken by all characters to avoid an impending fate and leading to an even more imminent and closer step to the final tragic outcome. One could look to the beginning, the exact point where King Laois seeks an audience with the Oracle of Delphi to learn his future. The question to ask is if the oracles prophecy had never been spoken would the chain of events have taken place causing King Laios to fear his own son and send him away to die. Laois being so curious of his destiny could have avoided his own death had he not learned the prophecy and tried so hard to avoid it. If Oedipus had been raised by his biological parents the probability that he would ave killed his father and marry his mother might have decreased. When taken away to be destroyed the herdsman responsible for leaving baby Oedipus to the elemenst did not have the resolution to complete the task. Instead he gave Oedipus toa messenger in the hopes that he would take the infant to a faraway land and no one would ever know that Oedipus had not perished as ordered. If Oedipus had died as an infant then the prophecy would never come true and Laios’s death would have been prevented. Oedipus was received by a childless King and Queen to raise as heir own. King Polybus and Queen Merope loved Oedipus very much and did not tell him that he was not their biological child. Rumors did circulate about Oedipus’s true parentage so he decided to visit the oracle and learn the truth. Instead of hearing that his parents were not truly his he learned that he would kill his father and marry his mother. The oracle did not mention that Polybus and Merope were not his biological parents so in fear of the foretold prophecy Oedipus flees from his home and travels far away in hopes of avoiding his proclaimed fate. Upon fleeing from his home to evade such a gruesome outcome, Oedipus meets a group of men at a crossroads. The carriage driver tries to push Oedipus off the road. In a rage most likely exasperated by the news of his learned prophecy Oedipus kill most of the men in the caravan. Unbeknownst to him he had Just completed the first part of his prophecy. He had killed his biological father King Laois. In an attempt to sidestep fate Oedipus actually makes it come true. When Oedipus arrives at Thebes he defeats the riddle of the Sphinx there in saving the city. This makes Oedipus a hero and by becoming the savior of the city he ends up marrying Jokosta, a newly widowed Queen. It makes sense that a city without a King would wish that their new hero would become their new leader. Oedipus doesn’t realize that he has Just married his biological mother. He lives for years with her thinking he has successfully avoided the prophecy yet in reality ne nas completed the prophecy by marring his own mother and killing his father. Many aspects happened in this story that causes

Dolphins: Communicators of the Sea

Dolphins are common creatures at rivers and seas. The majority of small toothed whales are dolphins. Dolphins are large sea animals making it part of the suborder Odontoceti, family Delphinidae. Whales and porpoises generally belong to the Cetaceans belonging to family Plantanistidae and Delphinidae, respectively. Often, people used dolphins and porpoises interchangeably denoting same species but porpoises in particular and dolphins are different species. Porpoises belong to family Phocaenidae; it has a rounded snout and chisel-liked teeth.While dolphins are under family Plantanistidae and Delphinidae, instead of a rounded snout, dolphins have beak like snout and sharp, conical teeth. Dolphins are outgoing creatures; often they are mingling in a group with two to fifteen animal members or more. Most of their communities are dominated by females, its offspring, sisters and other females. Sub adult male dolphins will leave these female-dominated communities to start a group of â€Å"b achelor† dolphins; if these dolphins become sexually mature, they can move in the female groups for copulation. These mammals are very playful.They are often spotted riding the bow wave or stern wake of boats and â€Å"surfing† on waves. Chasing and tossing things to one another is one of their favorite plays. If seen jumping or breaching, it indicates enthusiasm for these creatures. Play is important for dolphins for learning and as well as to practice their skills necessary for their life’s survival (Geocities. com, 2006). The current paper focuses on these creatures’ characteristics, particularly their capability to engage in echolocation. Scope The paper begins with an introduction about the dolphin, and their general characteristics as sea creatures.This is followed by a discussion of their general physiology, including their skin, fin, swimming speed, breathing, and body temperature. The dolphin family is then discussed, with its 33 species – with 5 river species and 6 porpoise species. Of these, the most popular is said to be the bottlenose dolphin which are found in theme parks and are featured in television programs. The next focus would be on the dolphin’s brainpower, specifically in their capacity to make tunes among themselves with a wide range of sounds. Their distinctive communication patterns are likewise expounded on.The paper concludes with a call for concern and protection from humans, who are supposed to be stewards of these creatures. Overview With regards to its general physiology, dolphins have rubbery skin. They are classified as mammals and have the capacity of maintaining high body temperature. They can hold their breath for several minutes making it easy for them to have rapid and deep dives of more then 300 m (1,000 ft). To date, there are more than 33 different species of dolphins, over 5 different species of river dolphins and more than 6 different species of porpoises.Though there are many species of dolphins, the most popular are bottlenose dolphins which are frequently featured in television and theme parks. Perhaps their greatest strength is their ability to communicate with one another or to echolocate. This is the counterpart of language among humans. Dolphins create whistles and sounds signifying an action for which another dolphin can understand, it can signal danger for their kind hence they should be alert or a prey is near at hand thus, everybody must prepare; depending on the whistle produced.They can make signature whistles that carry distinct information. Considering the cognitive abilities of bottlenose dolphins, their vocal learning and copying skills, and their fission–fusion social structure, their communication process can be further studied to provide evidences about their â€Å"dolphin messages and echoes. † Humans have the responsibility of taking care of these creatures, acting as their stewards to prevent them from extinction. Gene ral Physiology of a Dolphin A dolphin’s body is smooth having a rubbery-feel of its hairless skin when touched.The skeletal remnants of five digits in the front appendage form the flippers mainly acting as its balancer during its swim. The rear appendages are almost absent because the small pelvic bones are deep-rooted in the connective tissue at the base of the tail (Dolphin Lovers. com, 2006). The subcutaneous dermal tissue of the dolphin forms its immovable dorsal fin; its tail fin is also dermal in its origin. Its movement is similar with the whales wherein the major force comes from its vertical oscillations of the tail and flukes making it capable to swim at a speed of 37-40 km/h, and in some events, its swimming speed reaches up to 48 km/h.Dolphins seem restless in traveling the rivers but in reality, it rides the bow wave by making use of the ship’s trust (Stoops, 1996) Dolphins are mammals, hence breathing and maintaining high body temperature is vital. Dolphi ns maintain its internal temperature at 36. 5 deg to 37. 2 deg C (97. 9 deg to 99 deg F), with its thick layer of dense fat (blubber) under the skin. At the top of its head, a single nostril or blowhole is placed where it acts as its lungs. Dolphins breathe air at the surface every two minutes consisting of brief unpredictable exhalation followed by a longer inhalation.Dolphins are capable to hold their breath for several minutes making it easy for them to have rapid and deep dives of more then 300 m (1,000 ft) (Dolphin Lovers. com, 2006). Dolphin’s Brainpower Greco and Gini (2005) say that dolphins are capable of making tunes among themselves with a wide range of sounds. Dolphins show evidence that their intelligence is greater than that of dogs. Dolphins learn easily and execute complicated tasks, continuous communications with one another, and their ability to mimic the sounds of human language if they are given ample time to be trained.Toothed whales have exceptionally la rge brains including the famously bright dolphins that have capabilities previously only attributed to humans and apes. Cetaceans (dolphins, whales and porpoises) and its ancestors acquired changes specifically in their brain through evolution. One of the reliable evidence to support this claim is by measuring the level of encephalization of a species or a taxonomic group. EQ is the measure of observed brain size relative to expected brain size derived from a regression of brain weight on body weight for a sample of species.EQ measures how much larger or smaller a species’ total brain size is from what is expected based on brain-body algometry (Greco et. al, 2003). Dolphins and humans share many common attributes. Both creatures are mammals wherein the young are born alive and not hatched from eggs. Air is important for both organisms since it sustains their breathing; the only difference is that dolphins must come up to the surface to breathe in its blowhole on the top of it s head and when it dives, the blowhole closes unlike humans that continuously breathe air in its respiratory system.Wang (1995) asserts that aside from being mammals, communication is one the major attributes keeping these two organisms at par with one another. Humans are capable of language and speeches denoting an idea or message for a particular person while dolphins create whistles and sounds signifying an action for which another dolphin can understand, it can signal danger for their kind hence they should be alert or a prey is near at hand thus, everybody must prepare; depending on the whistle produced.