The topic of chronic offender concept this is where crime starts at an early age. Siegel states that relatively few offenders become chronic criminals perhaps chronic offenders possess some individual trait that is responsible for their behavior (2014). This makes me think of how trauma plays a role in how a brain develops and the damage it does to the part of the brain that makes decisions. I believe that if the trauma exposure theory is applied to the offenders when they begin to commit crime at an early age there could be prevention for chronic behavior. Then a Chronic offender could very well be just an offender. it seems to me that there is a mental health malfunction that the system is overlooking because they don't care. However, Siegel …show more content…
Tough (2008) then fills in the details to this rare one-of-a-kind program. Canada developed the program from the idea in order to move the children out of the poverty he had to start early. After becoming frustrated with the low success rate and the small number of people he could help at one time, he began to do some research. He looked at all the different ways that middle-class children developed and what they were being exposed to in the home. He reviewed all of the new Baby Einstein programs and how stimulating vocabulary and how reading to a child at an early age was comparing to not reading to them and teaching them positive words rather than negative words help their minds to develop. He used all of these theories in developing a program that he called baby college. later turned into a conveyor belt program which had children working through from birth to graduation. They would start before birth then into all-day kindergarten and into programs that most kids in Harlem would not be eligible for. As time went on Canada was able to have the children take their first placement test into the education program the children of the baby college program scored higher or above that of the kids who were not in the baby college program. Their reading levels and math levels were either higher or at same …show more content…
This is hard for me to wrap my mind around because in more States than not felons can vote and have been able to vote according to Matthew green (2016) only 2.5% of the voting population is disenfranchised. In Washington state inmates and people on probation for felony crimes cannot vote. Once they are off probation they can vote the other term I'm having a hard time with when talking on this matter is the term ex-felon. There is no such thing as an ex-felon. The jacket of fill-in is worn forever. That's like saying I'm an ex mother or an ex father. It's forever. I had to state my feelings about that. with that said I strongly believe that those states that do disenfranchised people, do like to keep the system in place. States like Alabama are still very much controlled by white upper class and the mass majority of felons are black and of poor lower economic status. I must add that a convicted felon is the only person that can legally be discriminated against, so using disenfranchisation is a way to keep the civil rights away from poor African-Americans, and a slick trick used to get away with it. This ensures those who have the power retain the
In Michelle Alexander’s talk, she described how discrimination becomes legalized once individuals become branded as a felon. As a result of a felony conviction, tons of offenders lose their right to vote, right to serve on jury, right to be free on legal discrimination regarding housing, and access to education. These restrictions connect to the systems of privilege, as it reinforces the stigma against felons while the social power of law enforcement agencies rises. The systems of privilege get maintained with the use of social control. According to statistics that Alexander gathered, African American males were the ones mostly affected by the felon disenfranchisement laws.
Finally, my last suggestion would be to alter the labels of ex-felonies for minor violations, and changing how to use the criminal check box. Once an ex-convict paid for their time in prison for inferior crimes we should not label then as a felon, so that they can apply for jobs and do not have to check on the felony box when applying for a job. Consequently, ex-convict could get a better chance to be hired, so that they truly have a chance to readjust in the society. People that who are labeled as a felon have a hard time applying for jobs, housings, and getting food stamps, making it impossible to survive and to provide for their family. They can lose their kids, their home, and become homeless and in other cases going back to jail.
This is deeply rooted in the Jim Crow Laws. When citizens are released from prison, at some point they have to re-engage in their community and by not allowing them to vote these states are not allowing that. It is almost like they are still in prison. The prisoners that are released are still considered an United States Citizen and should be treated as if they never were charged of those
Other forms of disfranchisement, including the disfranchisement of criminals, remain controversial. Since the early 1990s, all but three states prohibited imprisoned offenders from voting. Thirty-five states disfranchise offenders on probation or parole, and fourteen disfranchise ex-offenders for life. Because a disproportionate share of convicted criminals are non-white, some have argued that such laws constitute a racially discriminatory voting barrier that is as pernicious as poll taxes and literacy tests. Many state criminal disfranchisement laws date back to the Reconstruction era, and such laws were often targeted at offenses for which African Americans were disproportionately convicted.
It's really hard to pick a side on this topic because on one side i don't exactly want to live next to a felon or work next to felon because i would worry about my safety. However, i understand
So the ones, who think felon’s or ex-felons should not vote, hold a grudge and begin to despise the idea of allowing a felon to vote. People want to continue with felon disenfranchisement and exclude felons from their own country. Although felons seem to have no morals. In all honesty, they do and they should be allowed at least one right that all Americans are able to share with one another.
Felon disenfranchisement is not only unconstitutional but also further institutionalizes racism. For example, in communities consisting of minorities like African Americans and Hispanics felony disenfranchisement unlawfully create a disadvantage for freedom of speech. As stated by Eric H. Holder, JD a US Attorney General “although well over a century has passed since post-Reconstruction …the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable.” The act of taking away someone’s right to vote notably mirrors the act of forbidding African Americans to vote during the post-Reconstruction Era. Holder refers to the fact that taking away the right to vote essentially withdraws any opinions that minorities
Some politicians say cities have become much safer because of the success of the criminal justice system. Jacoby says, “To ease the pressure, nearly all convicted felons are released early -- or not locked up at all.” 58 percent of all murders and 98 percent of all burglaries not result in a prison term. Most of these convicted criminals are on the streets without parole supervision or
Felony voting: Unjust or rightful justice As of 2008 over 5.3 million Americans were denied the right to vote due to felony disenfranchisement laws. The United states is among the most punitive nations in the world when it comes to denying the right to vote and this has consequently caused voting rights to be a controversial issue for years now. Disenfranchisement can be linked back to centuries ago, in western countries, felony disenfranchisement can be traced back to ancient greek and roman traditions and was commonly used as a part of the punishment that was put on those convicted of “infamous” crimes and was a part of their civil deaths. Although, many people like myself believe that the limits that are being put on felons
This is certainly a conflicting issue. While it is fair to value the welfare of law abiding citizens over the welfare of convicted felons, placing restricting on felons presents the issue of those felons lacking the ability to become a contributing member of society. Like you mentioned, that can provide the push needed for them to return to crime rather than working towards a steady life of their own. Further research into the costs and benefits of such restrictions is necessary to determine whether these types of restrictions actually do benefit society overall like they intend to.
One thing all these reform-minded lawmakers seem to agree on is that the beneficiaries of a more lenient criminal justice system should be strictly limited to nonviolent offenders.” By Leon Neyfakh March 4 2015, Everyone wants to reduce America’s prison population Retreivedfromhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/03/prison_reform_releasing_only_nonviolent_offenders_won_t_get_you_very_far.2.html. Now I know what soon are thinking, Why would the elderly want criminals around their home. When I speak of non-violent offenders I 'm talking about people convicted of; unpaid parking ticket ( in the state of texas, you can serve time),DUI, Non-payment of child
Instead of facing a punishment, these criminals are treated just like law-abiding citizens. In addition, the authors explain that disenfranchisement rulings “[serve] the same purpose as the other forms of punishment for felonies: to discourage people from committing serious crimes by making them forfeit not only a year or more of their lives in prison, but by excluding them from the body of citizens who make the rules they agree to abide by.” The article explains that people who have committed felonies must be disciplined in order to learn a lesson. Many states that fail to punish released felons have people who may repeat their illegal activities. They may try to test the government and bend the rules.
The judgment of those who have committed serious crimes is not only arguable but untrustworthy. The right to vote should not return to felons upon completing their sentence because, there is no way of knowing if the individual has since improved their character. Ex cons should have to go a certain amount time without committing any sort of crime before voting rights are restored. While some may feel not permitting felons to vote goes against the eighth amendment, not allowing them to vote is in the people’s best
A therapist ONLY addressing an offender 's mental illness may be problematic because offenders have criminogenic needs that need to be treated in order to reduce criminal behavior. The Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model of corrections and rehabilitation was designed by Andrews, Honta, and Hoge in 1990. This model has demonstrated the strongest research-support on its ability to explain and treat criminal behavior. Andrews and Bonta have shown that in order to produce a successful rehabilitation program, the program must "respect the individual, have a psychological theory basis, and should work in junction with the enhancement of preventative services". This model reveals the importance of going beyond ONLY addressing an offender 's mental illness and providing treatment relevant to
The removal of this right dehumanizes prisoners. The streets of Texas are filled with blue or white collar criminals on bail or simply waiting for their sentence. Presently, if individual are found guilty of a crime, but they are not given a judicial sentence they are still allowed to vote; why should there be treated differently from convicted criminals who are locked up? However, allowing prisoners to vote while in prison would increase voting turnout and also Texas would gain the reputation of becoming one of the two states that allow prisoners to vote while in prison.