Category: Criminology

Instructions for this Assignment
You will need to view the “The Lucifer Effect” speech by Phillip Zimbardo, in which he discusses the process by which seemingly “normal” individuals transform into evil monsters. You are then required to critique the film and prepare a review.  You will submit a 900-word summary/critique of this film and provide application of criminological theories AND  in addition, You will need to view the “The Lucifer Effect” speech by Phillip Zimbardo, in which he discusses the process by which seemingly “normal” individuals transform into evil monsters. You are then required to provide a personal reflection on the film. Your reflection should be a minimum of 150 words in length and should relate to this module’s lessons. Important! Before beginning, please review the Film Critique Guidelines for specific instructions and requirements. Please follow guidelines to its entirety. Guidelines are attached
Video link:
https://youtu.be/Jc_e9M8M-RU 

Hide Assignment Information
Instructions
In two to three pages and in APA format writing discuss one of the two below:
Rape and sexual assault statics and how it impacts women victims
or
2. The different types of intimate partner violence and how it impacts women.
Your exam is due Sunday June 23, 2024, by 11:59pm.  

What role do evaluation research methods play in evidence-based practice? Why is it important to evaluate programs, policies, and practices?

How has criminal justice research impacted corrections policy, procedure, or practice? Discuss a specific example.

There is a growing movement to defund police departments nationwide and channel that money into more social services. Do you favor or oppose reducing the police budget in the community where you live?  If so, what programs would you reallocate those funds to?  If not, how would you better use the funds within the department to improve its operations. 
No sources or citations allowed.  

Research Skills Assignment 2 will guide you through developing a research question.  The first step of this process involves thinking about and identifying a broader “personal interest” related to a researchable sociological topic.
Think about some sociological personal interests that you have.  List at least two of these personal interests you have and discuss why you are interested in them.  Remember, this needs to be a sociological interest, so it might be helpful for you to first read the short blog entry “What Makes a Research Question Sociological?”
Interest One: 
Interest Two:
Q2. Building your understanding (2 parts – Q2a. and Q2b.)
Early in the research process we often consider what we know about our interests and what we need to know to develop our foundational knowledge of the subject.  Consider this – if my research interest is “college student food insecurity,” then I might need to know about how many college students are food insecure, how the concept of “food insecurity” is defined, and even just general knowledge about college attendance in the United States.  Gathering such knowledge requires me to engage with the scholarly (including government-published) research literature on this topic.  
Q2a. Choose one of the research interests you mentioned above.  Discuss your general knowledge about the topic – what do you know?  How do you know this to be true/accurate?  Explain in 3 to 5 sentences.
Q2b. Now consider what you don’t know.  Think about three pieces of foundational knowledge that you might need to know related to this interest.  These can be definitions of concepts, the general scope / scale of the sociological phenomenon of interest, or even why such an issue is worthy of investigation.  Below, list these three pieces of information you need to know and explain why this knowledge is foundational for exploring your selected research interest:
Q2b.1: 
Q2b.2: 
Q2b.3:
Q3. Locating literature (3 parts – Q3a., Q3b., Q3c.)
Now it is time to begin your investigation.  Consider Q2b.1, Q2b.2, and Q2b.3.  Use what you learned about navigating scholarly literature to locate a peer-reviewed research article that answers or attempts to answer (not necessarily exhaustively) one of the “holes” in your understanding from Q2b.  Read the article and answer the following questions:
Q3a. Provide a citation for the article written in ASA (American Sociological Association) or APA (American Psychological Association) formatting style. 
Q3b. What is something noteworthy you learned about the topic through reading this article?  What did you learn anything about the concepts/knowledge you discussed in Q2b and anything else you learned?  Explain in 3 to 5 sentences.
Q3c. What research method was used by the author(s) of the research article you selected?  Was this research quantitative, qualitative, or perhaps something else (e.g. mixed methods)?  Explain in 2 to 3 sentences.
Q4. Reflecting on Reading Scholarly Research
Accessing and reading scholarly literature like peer reviewed journal articles can be challenging, especially for a novice.  Reflect on your experience reading the article you located.  What was your experience like?  Were there any sections of the article that were particularly challenging to comprehend or navigate?  Explain in at least 3 to 5 sentences.

Topic 1:Reevaluating Parole and Probation Systems in the United States. Topic 2:Youth Sentencing in the Criminal Justice System
Students are required to complete a typed Informative Essay about a substantial contemporary criminal justice issue that will be submitted as an assignment through the course homepage. The essay must be in MLA or APA format and be a minimum of four complete to six double spaced pages long (excluding title page and works cited page) and consist of at least five or six paragraphs including an introduction, body and closing paragraphs, with a works cited page attached. The essay must contain information from a minimum of three cited sources including but not limited to peer-reviewed articles, books and websites. At least one source must be a peer-reviewed article. Do not use Wikipedia as a source. The essay will be graded on content and a demonstration of investigative effort in developing and expressing the factual information on the issue. Do not merely write a paper about your opinion on a subject or individual. 3rd college student but 1 year in criminal justice
My abstract: The purpose of this paper is to examine the shortcomings of the parole and probation systems in the United States. As well as highlighting the potential risks they pose to communities, it also raises concerns about the justice for victims.There is a strong emphasis on the importance of exploring alternatives to traditional punishments for non-violent offenders, as well as addressing the high rates of relapse among these individuals. This paper examines statistics and studies that reveal the ineffectiveness and challenges facing parole and probation systems. Advocating for reevaluating and potentially reforming these systems in order to better protect communities and ensure justice for all.
Three sources have to be used and one has to be a peer review.
Same amount for each 4 full to 6 pages also needs a title and work cited page as well

Review the Chapter 2 interview of Jimmy, the currently-retired person who speaks about his heroin habit which he gave us decades ago. Provide your own thoughts about the following questions:
Did you think that an addiction to heroin was a death sentence, that survival to old age is improbable? Does the fact that he is in his seventies and apparently in good health surprising?
Jimmy seems to be a well-adjusted guy. What does that say about personality theories that attempt to explain drug addiction?
Jimmy has experienced tragedies in his life. Is this more in line with these theories- that the way he lived his life, the impact he has had on people who were close to him, was directly related to the dysfunctionality of a person’s life?
How does Jimmy fit into your views on addiction, as well as the historic trends in drug consumption? Does it fit the research and data on drug use and abuse?
Here is the interview:
ACCount: Interview with Jimmy, a Former Heroin AddictJimmy is currently retired and in his late 70s. We talked about his heroin habit, which he gave up decades ago.EG:OK, you told me that when you were younger, you got involved with heroin for a period of time. I wonder if you would fill in the details about this period of your life—how did it start? And how old were you?J:I was very young, probably 13, and I started with barbiturates. My use weighed very heavily on me and on my parents. My philosophy is that if I want do go to the moon, I don’t want to stop off in Nebraska. I knew some people who snorted heroin, and I knew I wanted to try it. So, I bought some. I snorted three bags. In those days, in the fifties, dope was really dope. Not this weak-ass, diluted shit that’s out there on the street now. I got sick—really sick. I puked and puked and puked. Later, a friend told me that I had just put a substance in my body. He said, “From now on, your body will recognize that substance.” But I told myself, “This is really great! I love it—I want to do that again!”When I was a teenager, we had family issues. My mother had colitis. She took a medication, an opiate drug, in liquid form. One day, I went into the fridge, and I saw a bottle, three-quarters full, and I read the label. I took some, then filled what I took out with water. Later, when my mother took it, she realized how weak it was. So, she made me understand that she was taking it for medical reasons. She told me, “If I can’t take it, I’ll shit all over myself.” And my father—he was verbally abusive. He never had anything good to say to me, and the more he abused me, the more I stayed out of the house. Snorting it, I began developing a “chippy” habit—small and recreational, not a true addiction. But a friend of mind told me he had works; he told me he could stick it right into my fuckin’ arm. Instead of snorting it and waiting for 7 minutes to get high, by shooting it into my arm, I got high in 7 seconds. I said to myself, “Where have you been all my life?” I wanted to do it again and again. When my dad berated me, when I took the heroin, I was wearing a bullet-proof vest. He’d never get to me. I didn’t care. As issues developed, we had an altercation, I laid my hands on him, and he threatened to call the cops. So, I left the house at 15. I packed a little bag— T-shirts, underpants, basic stuff. For a couple of weeks, I lived in a park; in those days, it was open after midnight. I met an older woman, 30 years old, and she said, come stay with me. Let me say, she was taking a chance. I’d steal from anyone in a hot second, but I did have certain borders
I wouldn’t cross. Still, if I was sick [having a heroin withdrawal], anything goes. So, I was with her a while. But she caught me in bed with another woman, and she kicked me out. Meanwhile, my habit got worse and worse. Before long, I was a flat-out junkie. But I educated myself about drugs. I read a lot in the library. I thought that junkies were insane, so I figured I must be crazy. EG:At the height of your habit, how much heroin did you use? J:You hear a lot of former junkies brag about the size of the habit they had. They’ll say, “I did three bundles a day.” A bundle is 10 bags, which would cost about $80–90 today, but to get that price, two bundles for $170, you have to tip the dealer $30. In those days, tops, I did about 25 bags a day. In New York City, a bag currently costs about $10. I never had what you’d call a controlled habit. I’d go to sleep with three bags, wake up at two in the morning, shoot the three bags, and have to go scrounging when I woke up. I’d have to spend half a day raising the money to buy the dope, and if I couldn’t buy the dope, I’d get sick. It was a horrible fuckin’ feeling. Now, you’d think after throwing up a few times, I’d get the message. You go to a restaurant, walk out, and throw up, you don’t eat there again. But I tell you, after all that, years of addiction, if someone offered me a speedball [heroin and cocaine in combination] today and he could guarantee that there would be no negative consequences, no cost, no pain, no sickness, no addiction—I’d take it. EG:How did you earn a living? What did you do to get the money? J:I was a thief. I never committed armed robbery. I’d steal whatever was lying around. I stole unattended purses. I’d have a black garbage bag I’d throw the purses into. Sometimes there was a buck-fifty in a purse, sometimes two or three hundred. I had a scam with a woman. She’d pretend to have an epileptic seizure, and women would look at her and forget about their purse, and I’d steal the purse. Whatever wasn’t tied down, I’d steal.I got into smoking crack, which is not technically addicting—there’s no withdrawal. Last time I smoked crack, 30 years ago, I was on the roof of a building. And I thought to myself, “The only thing I can do is to jump off this roof.” I had what we call in NA [Narcotics Anonymous] a “sober moment.” I thought, “I’m going to jump off the roof and I’ll break every bone in my body, I’m going to wake up in a hospital, and I’m going to demand a morphine drip for the pain, and the nurse will say to me, ‘You are paralyzed from the neck down, you don’t feel any pain, we’re not going to give you a morphine drip.’” That was my nightmare. So, I didn’t jump. I had a number in my pocket—I had had it for years. I was so depressed about my habit that I decided to call the number. This was April 12, 1984. I called the guy, and he took me to NA meetings. I was still totally obsessed with dope, and people would call me and say, “It’s going to pass, it’s going to pass,” and I wanted to punch them in the face. I got a job in a Jewish rehab center. Had it for about three years, but it went out of business. EG:What about alcohol? Ever have a problem there?J:Nothin’. I’m fuckin’ grateful I never got into drinking. If I had gotten involved, I wouldn’t just be an alcoholic, I’d be dead. I never had nothing to do with alcoholism. At all. Period.EG:Tell me about your arrest and incarceration record. R:I got arrested when I was 16 for a misdemeanor, but my lawyer worked out a probation deal, no jail time, and I was released. When I was 18, I caught a felony conviction, and I served 2 years at Elmira,
a state penitentiary. When I was in Elmira, after about 6 weeks, still in orientation, a guy took me under his wing. He said, “If you do what I say, you’ll never get in trouble here.” I don’t have any complaints about being in the joint. I used dope when I was in prison. You have to know somebody. I had money, cigarettes, dope. Came home at 20 and used right away. At the age of 25, I got pinched again, a misdemeanor, served 9 months in Riker’s. A few years later, I caught another felony, I was locked up for 14–15 months. For 30 years, I haven’t been arrested. Haven’t even had a conversation with the police. Haven’t gotten into trouble since then. Nothing illegal. No way in a million years, I’ll never get locked up again.[We’re sitting on a bench in a public place. An attendant wheels a disabled man past us in a wheelchair. We both watch him go by; he’s in his seventies, has a cloth stuffed in his mouth, and he looks feeble and sick.] J:That could have been me. How many funerals does the average person go to in a lifetime? Their parents. Older relatives. Maybe a few friends. Really unfortunate accidents. How many? Three, four, six? Twelve? I’ve been to a thousand funerals. Maybe only 1 percent aren’t drug-related. EG:Have you ever been married?J:Seven years. I destroyed my marriage. EG:Any children?J:Two. One hanged himself. It was drug related. The other won’t have anything to do with me.EG:That’s sad. [Long pause.] Why do you come here to this park? You live in the Bronx. There are lots of nice New York parks closer. J:I like it here. There’s nothing like this place. Central Park? Forget about it. Tompkins Square? Belligerent drunks. Guys on the needle nodding off. It’s peaceful here. Nothing bad happens here. EG:What’s your housing situation like? J:I live in a HUD apartment. Housing and Urban Development. I don’t know about God, but I do know that from time to time, somebody intervenes to help out. A woman who’s living with her mother had a nice apartment in the Bronx, small, one-bedroom, kitchen, living room, bathroom, nothing fancy but nice, said to me, “You can have the apartment.” I live there and I love it. And I come here [to Washington Square Park]. EG:Can you sum up your experience with dope in a few sentences? J:I wouldn’t wish the experience on anyone. Everything I did, I did to myself. I have no one to blame but myself. QUESTIONSWhat’s your reaction to this interview with Jimmy? Did you think that an addiction to heroin was a death sentence, that survival to old age is improbable? Does the fact that he’s in his seventies and apparently in good health surprising? What would you ask him? Jimmy is a very friendly, well-adjusted guy. What does that say about personality theories that attempt to explain drug addiction? At the same time, he’s experienced tragedies in his life. Is that more in line with these theories—that the way he lived his life, the impact he’s had on people who were close to him, was directly related to the dysfunctionality of a person’s life? How does Jimmy fit into your views on addiction?

For the next eight weeks you and your student colleagues will be working toward a common goal: create an original, scholarly work synthesizing criminal justice theories, methodology and systems and apply them to a current issue in the field, demonstrating substantial knowledge of the your criminal justice concentration outcomes. Knowing a bit about your student colleagues will enhance the process.
In this Discussion Topic, we will explore commonly held “fears” of conducting scholarly research and share helpful resources. Your thesis needs to be supported by ample scholarly research. Describe your plan for researching your topic. List any resources you have found that you feel may be helpful to your student colleagues. Also, your project must demonstrate mastery of your criminal justice degree program student learning outcomes.
Review those outcomes here: https://www.charteroak.edu/criminal-justice/
https://www.charteroak.edu/criminal-justice/
Describe how your project demonstrates mastery of these outcomes.

In the state of Denial, the Capital City Police have been watching gang activity between two local gangs, the Drips and the Scruds. The Scruds are mad at the Drips because they believe that the Drips have been encroaching on the Scruds’ territory and selling drugs in the Scruds’ neighborhood. Members of the gangs take the first letter of the gang’s affiliation for their “gang name.” For example, the leader of the Drips is assumed the name Dripster, while the leader of the Scrips took on the name Stupido. Officers Do-Right and Justice have been assigned to the case and have been following members of both gangs closely over the past several weeks.
Dripster (the leader of the Drips) has been driving around in a Black Chevrolet Blazer that is registered to his girlfriend. Do-Right and Justice have placed a tracking device on the vehicle so that they can follow the gang leader at a safe distance without him noticing them. Using the tracking device, they have followed him to a party being held at a house owned by the girlfriend of a fellow Drip, Dufus.
The officers decide to use a new device that they have obtained from the police department called the Bloodhound, which can sniff out certain smells from a distance. Using the Bloodhound, the officers have determined that inside the house are the following substances: marijuana, creatine (which is commonly used to cut cocaine), and lye (which can be used in making methamphetamine). Based upon the information they have obtained from the Bloodhound, they call a magistrate and obtain a search warrant for Dufus’ house.
After backup arrives, Officers Do-Right and Justice lead the way to the house, where they break through the front door of the house without first knocking and announcing their presence. Inside the house, they find Dripster sitting at the kitchen table in front of a scale and a white powdery substance, which is later determined to be to be cocaine. They also find Dufus in a back room surrounded by boxes of electronics and a pile of cash that they later determine to be $50,000. With Dufus are two low-level Drips, Dummy and Duncecap, who are armed with automatic assault rifles and loaded handguns.
When the officers rush into the room where Dufus, Dummy, and Duncecap are, Duncecap immediately throws up his hands and tells the officers, “I’ll tell you everything I know! Just don’t arrest me!” Dufus turns to his accomplices and says, “If either of you says a word, you are dead meat.” Duncecap immediately stops talking and claims he “doesn’t know anything about anything.”
As Do-Right is escorting Dripster to his cruiser after he has arrested him, a carload of Scruds drives by slowly. The Scruds’ leader, Stupido, leans out of his window and yells to Dripster, “I told you to keep your business off our turf!” Dripster, thinking Stupido is the reason that the cops raided the house, grabs Do-Right’s gun and opens fire towards Stupido’s car. Dripster misses Stupido and his car, but he shoots and injures a 12-year-old girl, Innocent, who is watching the arrests in her front yard across the street. Innocent survives but is paralyzed. At the same time, Stupido, realizing that Dripster is shooting at him, grabs his own weapon from the car and shoots at his arch-enemy but misses him.
Officers are able to safely transport Dripster, Dufus, Dummy, and Duncecap to the police station and have also arrested Stupido. They search Stupido’s car at the scene and find the gun he used to shoot at Dripster. Ballistics shows that the gun was used in a previous armed robbery of a party store. Stupido is charged with the robbery.
At the police station, Officer Justice, who is questioning Dummy without first reading Miranda warnings, tells Dummy that if he tells him everything he knows about the rivalry between the Drips and the Scruds and agrees to testify against the members of both gangs, the police will charge him with only possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor. Dummy takes the deal.
Stupido was interrogated at the police station regarding the armed robbery and told that he had been named as the robber by an eyewitness. He asked for his lawyer three times, but his lawyer, who arrived at the police station while Stupido was being interrogated, was twice denied entry to the interrogation. After three hours of interrogation, Stupido confesses to the armed robbery.
Dripster is convicted of attempted murder of Innocent and sentenced to death. He is also convicted of possession with intent to sell marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine. He is additionally convicted of possession of stolen property (the electronics) and unregistered firearms. Stupido is convicted of the armed robbery and attempting to murder Dripster. Dufus and Duncecap are also convicted of possession with intent to sell marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine; possession of stolen property (the electronics); and for unregistered firearms. Dummy is convicted of misdemeanor possession of marijuana.
The cases are all combined as People v. Dripster, Dummy & Stupido , et al. The following points have been appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. You are an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and this case has come before the Court. The Chief Justice has assigned you to write a majority opinion resolving the case. In your paper,
Write an opinion (an analysis of the questions below that will serve as the reasoning and the ruling of the Supreme Court) that resolves the case based upon previous cases from the United States Supreme Court, other federal and state courts, and other scholarly sources.
Explain your opinion on each of the following points:
Evaluate whether all the evidence from the house should have been suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree, because the placing of a tracking device on the Blazer driven by Dripster without a warrant and without probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment.
Assess whether all the evidence from the house should have been suppressed because the use of the Bloodhound device without a warrant and without probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment.
Determine whether all evidence from the house should have been suppressed because the warrant issued by the magistrate was based upon information obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Rule on whether all evidence from the house should have been suppressed because the police officers did not knock and announce; the warrant was not a no-knock warrant.
Conclude whether the gun used by Stupido should have been suppressed because the officers had no right to search his car at the scene.
Examine whether Dummy’s conviction for marijuana possession should be overturned, because he was not read Miranda warnings before making a deal.
Evaluates whether Stupido’s confession should have been suppressed, because his lawyer was not allowed to see him.
Explain the validity of Dripster’s death sentence for shooting and paralyzing Innocent violates the Eighth Amendment.
Must use at least five court cases and three scholarly sources