English essay, English homework help

Exploring whether are Criminals Born or Made

A criminal can be defined as a person who has committed a crime. It does not matter whether one has committed a crime once or numerous times. Offences that may make one qualify to be called a criminal may include, robbery with violence, murder and so on. One may wonder why is it that some people have the habit of continually committing such crimes while others don’t? Is it a matter of inheriting some genes from the family or is it one’s on desire to do so? These questions and many more are some reasons that have brought about a fiery argument from the subject of criminology in the expedition to find the source of criminal behaviour in our society today and also ways of dealing with such kind of behaviour in our society. This essay will bring out factors that may lead to answering some of these questions looking at both approaches whether one is born a criminal or is forced to become a criminal because of some other factors like environment. Nevertheless, the essay will take a position and argue that these criminals are made and that no one is born a criminal. This is a behaviour some people obtain due to either by their own choice or factors from their environment. Psychologists have come up with many assumptions and intentions as to why individuals commit crimes. The two main clarifications lie in genetic and environmental factors, which conveys to the nature and nurture debate. Some argue that criminals are born, these are philosophers and scientists who believe that the genetics play a role in a persons behaviour and thus criminals are as a result of the same; these are twin and adoption studies. On the other hand there are also studies that have been conducted to prove that criminals are made by society, these are scientist and philosophers who consider that it is the environment, such as a persons interaction with the society that models behaviour of the individual. Some psychologists and medical researchers have come to the theory that criminal behaviour is hereditary just as other medical conditions, such as heart disease and high cholesterol. This gives a conclusion that criminals have a tendency to commit crime and are indeed born (Wasserman D (2004). On the other hand, an individual who is not genetically inclined to criminal behaviour can be forced by the environment to get involved in to the same. Peer pressure is one of best illustration in such cases. Most of the criminals today are from big cities where living conditions are somehow hostile. One of the major factors that drive such individuals to criminal behaviour is poverty, which in this case lies in the nature side of the debate. That is to say, poverty, which is an environmental factor, also plays a huge role in producing criminal behaviour (Baatz, Darrow, 2009).. A study on identical twins in a University in Florida carried out in 2007 shows that the relationship of criminal behaviour of identical and fraternal twins were evaluated with each other in these studies; it was concluded that rates of participation in criminal acts to be more alike for pairs of identical twins compared to fraternal. However, critics dispute that reasons other than that of hereditary could be the cause for the result. Contrasting to other family members identical twins normally spend more time collectively, frequently having the similar instructors and associates, thus sharing allot of experiences. Identical twins are more often than not closely emotionally involved to each other because of the aforesaid factors, making them similar in approach and behaviour including, involvement in criminal activity. A question may be raised in relation to genetic factors leading to criminal behaviour, that why should one be penalized if it is genetically inherited? The answer to such a question rely in part on whether one believes that factors reducing but not getting rid of one’s ability for willpower ought to reduce moral accountability for one’s behaviour. Moral philosophers differ on this subject, with some requiring an impairment of normal deliberative processes or at least a denial of the desires that the person finds so hard to manage before they would accept an argument for improvement. However, poverty is not the only environmental factor that may lead an individual to crime. One may notice that though poverty is a factor in criminal behavior, not all people leaving in poverty indulge in crime (Raine, 1993). This is to say that criminal behavior can be controlled by the environmental factors like what lessons one is taught. Still, not all criminals come from modest background or from big cities, some also come from well-off families living in outer edge. These are mostly peer influence, naturally human beings are sensible, and they freely make decisions even though they understand the outcome of their own choices. Thus criminals are not born but made. The old proverb says that wicked group damage decent principles. Relating with criminals can make an individual to end up as a criminal. This may be the major motive why children from well-off families obtain criminal behaviour. Petty crimes committed by children may appear to be a tale to friends who may also be involved the same for pleasurable. Over duration of time, this behaviour may prove to become a permanent thing. Peer pressure is mainly clear in the slums where houses close to one another. Among other factors, this explains why crime rate is on the higher on average in poor vicinity. According to study, families in inner cities are facing many challenges. There is extremely huge number of single parent families where mostly the father is missing. A family where father is missing lacks that unity that a father brings in a family. Boys need a father figure in the family to help them grow and learn how to control their manhood. In Addition to this domestic hostility that is rampant in families and the circumstances that become apparent is an rising number of youth brought up in such homes. Another good example is the high rate of criminal activity associated with African Americans as compared to the whites. This can only be explained by the peer influence acquired from one another in these neighbourhoods. A family mingles an individual to the exterior world. It introduces the prospects of society on each individual. When the individual is brought up in a family set upwhere there is respect for authority and personal possessions, there is affection, and hard work is appreciated; this individual assumes the similar principles. A father figure in the family symbolizes authority. Children brought up in single parented families where they were battered may utter their antagonism on the public and become criminals (Ferri, 2008). The importance of rearing children in normal families cannot be contradicted. Thus most single parented families play a major role to crime in that they do not instil the best of the children they bring up by bringing out the mandatory morals. This evidently illustrates why a family is the heart of every society, and everything that takes place in it will eventually resound transversely in the whole society (Miller,

Historical Research Methods: Strengths and Weaknesses

essay helper free What are the strengths and limitations of using biography, autobiography and oral history as historical sources? The combination of autobiography, biography and oral history is enrichment to the study of history through placing an emphasis on the role that personalities and individuals have in historical events. They form important sources for historical study both primary and secondary. It has been claimed that the relative merits of biography and oral history, although intrinsically flawed, are an essential element in the writing and study of history. Oral history as a source can conceivably be controversial because it could be perceived as unreliable and mercurial. Memory and the passage of time can intentionally or unintentionally, distort or omit details; seeming spontaneity in response can be over-elaborate or exaggerate an individual’s contribution; oral dialogue can personalise events and confirm them but a personal perspective could also diminish and simplify the same events. Interviews, despite possible lack of detail, lapses of memory and tricks of the imagination, give access to a valuable historical source which could create a lost world. History is not just an evaluation of causes and consequences; it is also a study of human nature. Autobiography, biography and oral history can give illustration and colour to what could be perceived as a dry and dusty subject. They can add personal insight into an event and because of this they can also be unreliable. They can modify or distort the truth according to the author’s motives for writing the piece or agreeing to the interview. It could be argued that history is a record of human progress, achievements and endeavours so without the contribution of personalised accounts whether through oral recordings, biography or autobiography, the study and analysis of history would be a one-dimensional digest of facts. History without some personal focus would be tedious and unbalanced; personal records prompt deeper historical reflection and research. Biography It is hard for the biographer, for instance, to rise above his own preconceptions and be truly objective. Biographies should be used as sources but it always should be borne in mind that they are often subjectively and not always objectively written. The one of the strengths of using biographies are that there is a direct focus on an event and the biographer might give an event more depth and detail than a general history book would and perhaps give it a human slant. Biographers can be biased, they are sometimes said to fall in love with their subjects. Whilst this maybe an exaggeration there is some truth in the fact that it is hard to be objective about a subject that the writer has analysed in depth and feels they understand. Biographers are selective through necessity as no biography can ever be a full unvarnished story of a life. In this selection the biographer has to make a decision as to whether he is judgemental or whether he presents a selection of facts from which his reader can form their own opinion of the subject. In presenting such a selection, the biographer will be allowing his own views and background colour his choice. It is the attempt to be even-handed with the subject of the biography that can cause controversy as the biographer is accused of rehabilitating history’s villains on one hand or denigrating its heroes on the other. Revisionist theories about notorious historical figures can cause outcry and condemnation as was well illustrated by David Irving’s biography of Adolf Hitler. Even with all the problems, they still are a good source of information and the reader should always consider other books about the same person if they are unsure of the treatment of the subject matter. The wisest thing to do is to cross reference biographies/history books and use more than one source, in order to get a better and more informed opinion. Autobiography Autobiography can provide unique insights since nobody knows better than the subject about themselves. On the other hand they can be economical with the truth or written to cause sensation; the facts could be skewed because the writer will not doubt be attempting to present himself in the best light. It is also probable that only one point of view of events will be given so the account might not be well-balanced. That being said, autobiography is a good first source of information.

Grossmont Cuyamaca College Structure and Function of Plasma Membrane Questions

Grossmont Cuyamaca College Structure and Function of Plasma Membrane Questions.

Complete the following scenarios on osmosis, movement of water. These will be similar to what you will have on the next exam A red blood cell (0.9% NaCl) is placed into a solution of 20% NaCl. The water is able to mov through the cell membrane, what happens to the red blood cell in this situation? Is this environment (outside solution) that the cell was placed into hypertonic or hypotonic?A red blood cell (0.9% NaCl) is placed into a solution of 100% DI water. The membrane is again permeable to water. What happens to the cell in this situation? Is this environment (outside solution) hypertonic or hypotonic?A plant cell (0.9% NaCl) is placed into a solution of 20% NaCl, the membrane is permeable to water. What happens to the plant cell?A plant cell (0.9% NaCl) is placed into a solution of 100% DI water, the membrane is permeable to water. What happens to the plant cell?5 A dialysis bag (simulating a membrane) of 15% glucose is placed in a beaker of 5% glucose. The bag is permeable to both water and glucose. A. What is the net movement of water? B. What is the net movement of glucose? C. Which solution in this situation s hypertonic and which is hypotonic?Previous
Grossmont Cuyamaca College Structure and Function of Plasma Membrane Questions

effects of personal values and beliefs on criminal justice ethical theories

The criminal justice system and the decisions made within this system affect everyone as a whole and therefore should be given considerable thought regarding ethics and morality. If this is not achieved, even the best of intentions can provide for unwanted consequences. There are several different theories in which criminal justice ethical issues can be examined. Utilitarianism, Deontological and the Peacemaking theory are just a few discussed in this paper. The utilitarianism ethical theory is based on consequences. That is, we deliver consequences based on the results of an action. The morality of an action is based on whether the consequence produced was good or bad. Utilitarian’s believe that consequences should produce a feeling of happiness and pleasure. They calculate the intensity of pleasure or pain and the duration of pleasure or pain. They also consider what the long term effects are and if the outcome will produce the consequences intended. Once all this has been considered, the morality of the consequence is based on the greatest number of people who stand to gain the greatest amount of pleasure. I do not agree with this theory because it is too simple. Its simplicity creates many concerns. First, it is difficult to judge an action before it occurs because the outcome of an action is not always clear and it is not always possible to determine who it will affect. Second, the time needed to fairly calculate the consequence is not always available or possible. Third, the greater good is determined by the greatest number and may be achieved by harming the few. It fails to consider the individual rights of a person or the few. Harm is okay as long as the greater good fulfilled. So I believe that the Utilitarianism theory could allow an innocent person to be harmed as long as it served the greater good. Deontological ethics argues that a person has a “duty to perform certain actions regardless of the consequences.” (Braswell, McCarthy, McCarthy) The right or duty is second to the greater good and the consequences of an action are irrelevant. So, when analyzing an ethical dilemma, a person should consider their obligation and duties. The Deontological theory believes the key to morality is human will. Although this theory provides several positive attributes, it does have it problems. First, there is no “gray area.” An action is either right or wrong, pass or fail, good or evil. Second, there is no system for solving the moral dilemmas created when duties come in conflict. For example, a duty may require I perform physically incompatible actions. It would be considered morally wrong if I failed to perform my duty even though it was not physically possible. Not only does it not provide for conflicting duties, it does provide for a clear, ethical understanding of the resolution. Therefore, it does not protect others from its duties. For example; it is my duty to get to work on time but I am running late, does that mean I am allowed to speed, run red lights and drive recklessly so that I can arrive at work on time? This scenario shows that there is no guidance when a complex issue arises with conflicting obligations. It is because there is no “gray area” in the Deontological theory, that I can not support this theory. The Peacemaking theory can be achieved in three themes; connectedness, caring and mindfulness. First, connectedness suggests that everybody and everything is connected in some way. It is believed that because we are all connected, so are our actions. As a result, our actions all come back to each other whether or not we see the connection. “What goes around comes around.” (Braswell, McCarthy, McCarthy) Second, ethical caring is believed to be grounded in natural caring. Justification and argument are considered masculine approaches and the feminists approach can be found in maternal ethics. However, the ethics of care should be considered the social responsibility of both women and men. Mindfulness helps us to see the big picture while allowing us to be fully present. It allows us to be more aware of our thoughts and actions. It can help us develop a sense of compassion for others and their needs. Mindfulness can be achieved through meditation. It is believed that when you’re peaceful through connectedness, caring and mindfulness, you will become more moral and ethical. I believe in this principal. Our ethics and morals are a part of us and what we believe in. Peacemaking can be achieved by changing ourselves, “then others by our example, and finally our system of justice-from the inside out.” (Braswell, McCarthy, McCarthy) The theory that I most support is driven by my values. My values are trust, honesty, responsibility and integrity. I have developed these values through life experience. My father, a wonderful man, worked two jobs to support us and therefore, he was rarely home. However, he had wonderful Christian values which formed the foundation for the values I have today. My mother and I never really connected and as a result, I stopped coming home on a daily basis. The values I developed in my younger years were based more on survival and just making it day to day. If I would have continued living the values I believed in as a child, I would have wound up in jail or worse. ` Throughout my 47 years, my values have changed as I have changed. Even though my values may have changed from time to time, I have learned that trust is the foundation for all values. If you do not have trust, you can not build a relationship. This is true with your friends, coworkers, children and spouses. I find it difficult to find truth, integrity or responsibility without trust. As a 4 year survivor of domestic violence, it is easy to see why trust would be my number one value. Not only was it an issue during my relationship with my ex, it was an issue with my children once we were alone. I spent many years trying to prove I was trustworthy to my ex, much to my defeat. Although the circumstances were different, the foundation was the same. There was no trust, whether justified or not, therefore there could be no truth, integrity or responsibility. During our relationship, my children heard me say time and time again “It’s over. I will never allow him in our home again, I promise” just to see him back in our house again. Since trust can not be built on lies, they no longer saw me as trustworthy let alone honest, responsible and full of integrity. I had to prove myself by trying to rebuild the foundation of trust that was lost during their young lives. Once trust has been established, I believe honesty; responsibility and integrity go hand in hand. If any of these values are misused, taken advantage of or broken, then the foundation of “trust” is gone as well. Trust is also important in our everyday lives. In school, the teacher trusts that we will do our homework, study and come prepared for the day’s lesson. They trust us to present our own work and not copy or cheat from others. At work, our employer trusts that we will show up on time, perform our duties and respect our co-workers. They trust that we will not steal from them, destroy their property and that we would present ourselves in such a manner that would reflect well on the company. I am sure it will come as no surprise when I say my goal is to counsel victims and survivors of domestic abuse and violence. I think that my childhood experience as well as the experiences I survived as an adult will allow me to provide insight to a client. A domestic violence victim faces two different aspects towards the road to recovery; legally and emotionally. Legally, I learned how to develop a safety plan, file a police report and file for an order of protection. However, emotional recovery as a result of domestic violence can take years and trust is an important part of the recovery. The victim must trust the criminal justice system to protect them and provide a sense of security. They must also trust their counselor. They need a counselor that is empathetic and nonjudgmental. They have to trust that the counselor will be supportive without taking control and help them gain the courage needed to reach their full potential and goals. The counselor must help them rebuild their trust so that they can feel safe again. My values and beliefs are a direct result of my recovery from domestic violence and therefore I believe they are exactly what are needed to become a successful domestic violence counselor. Victims experience symptoms similar with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD.) They feel hopeless, helpless, and experience fear and anxiety. I believe that recovery can only be achieved through trust, honesty, responsibility and integrity. Since I believe that trust is the foundation for my other values and beliefs, it is no surprise that a domestic violence victims trust level is very low. They often just need someone to believe in them and not judge them. They need a counselor that understands, sympathizes and empathizes in everything they have been through. Most important, they need a counselor that will never ask the question “why?” Although I can not speak for every survivor, for myself, that is one question I could never really figure out. Almost everyone during that time frame would ask me “why” and I have pondered that question almost everyday for the past 4 years, not because “everyone” asked me but because my daughter asked me. I could recite the reasons that make sense to people like; money, afraid of being alone, I felt like I deserved it and fear of retaliation if I left, but that would be a lie. Although all of those things existed and may have played a small role in why I stayed, they certainly were not the main reason for staying. Even today, I honestly can not answer that question and I am not sure I will ever be able to. However, I do know that all of my decisions in life are now based on the values and beliefs I learned during my road to recovery and that recovery began when I learned to trust.