Rehabilitating Women Offenders

Rehabilitating Women Offenders.

Description

Choose a special population (i.e., sex offenders, women, juveniles, substance abuse, mental health, etc)

Write a paper of 5 pages minimum, no more than 8 pages(1500-to 1750-words) in which you explain the best way in which to engage with that population in the process of rehabilitation. These 5 to 8 pages do not include the required cover page and reference page.

Include responses to the following questions:

Explain the ideas and perspectives you would take in engaging in this population. What are the theoretical assumptions you have about rehabilitation? What are your assumptions about this population?
Describe techniques, like motivational interviewing, that would help in engagement with this population. Justify their inclusion.
Describe how you would take one individual from this population and take them through the system of corrections from a felony conviction with a probability of incarceration time. You may define other aspects of the experience as necessary. Describe tools, techniques, and ideas you would use to engage them at each step through to successful rehabilitation.

Sample Solution

 

T with extinction] except if exchange examples of such species is dependent upon exacting guideline.” Parties are required to screen and confine exchange, except if it is shown through logical proof that it is allowed. In conclusion, the least directed is Appendix III which incorporates “all species which any Party distinguishes as being dependent upon guideline inside its locale to counteract or confining abuse” and demands CITES’ support in managing exchange. Exchange under Appendix III must be checked, however not confined. The postings under the Appendices are not fixed. Informative supplement I and II can be revised by a 66% dominant part vote of the Parties present, while Appendix III can be singularly altered. Choices, including alt Rehabilitating Women Offenderserations, are received by the CoP and get authoritative following 90 days without approval. The strengthening given to the Parties, through the type of assigned law-production, can be seen as concerning. It empowers them to take huge choices without being checked by any predominant power. It likewise diminishes the weight on each Party in casting a ballot, as they realize that their one vote won’t be the determinant of the choice, which may bring about wild choices. This confirmations the requirement for well-contemplated criteria, since they are not given by CITES, and are at the apex of the basic leadership process. b. Disappointment of Bern Criteria: The main endeavor to give a far reaching set of rules was at the Bern Conference of Parties in 1976. The posting criteria set up models that must be considered for species in Appendices I and II. It was an endeavor to utilize organic proof when deciding, be that as it may, the significance of this information depended to a great extent on its accessibility. This was a positive move away from the ambiguous language of the Convention, yet, it was obscure and took into account political perspectives to impact choices. Moreover, it made it p Rehabilitating Women Offenders ractically incomprehensible for species in Appendix I to be downsized to Appendix II, which undermined the unmistakable quality of Appendix I. The Bern Criteria were at last increasingly worried about ensuring natural life, as opposed to satisfying the point of the Convention, which is to manage exchange. The Bern rules didn’t triumph in giving dependable norms to pursue. They basically indicated out issues consider during the basic leadership process, taking into account expansive understanding by the Parties. At the Kyoto CoP, it was set up that the absence of sound rules destabilized CITES. It was apparent that a progressively logical methodology was required. This would move towards restricting political choices and along these lines bring about right choices being taken, just as upgrade the nearness Rehabilitating Women Offenders  of the Rule of Law. c. The Fort Lauderdale CoP: At the Ninth CoP, changes were made to the Bern rules. Right off the bat, and seemingly above all, logical quantitative rules were presented through the making of the Fort Lauderdale Criteria. Furthermore, there was a move in qualities to think about when deciding the posting of species from being an exchange status to a natural status. Also, the CoP embraced down-posting species that never again require the stringent guidelines of the addendum they were in, just as allowed split-posting, implying that two distinct populaces of similar species could be in various indeces. I. Fortress Lauderdale Criteria Explained: The rules, reconsidered at the thirteenth CoP in 2004, include four expansive organic criteria for evaluating whether an animal types ought to be remembered for Appendix I. They express that one must have respect to the size and vacillations of the populace size, variances in the region of dissemination and nature of the living space of the species. For Appendix II to be met, it either should be realized that guideline of exchange is important to “evade it getting qualified for incorporation in Appendix I sooner rather than later” or “to guarantee that  Rehabilitating Women Offenders the collect of examples from the wild isn’t lessening the wild populace.” At first occasion, the criteria seem unclear and don’t appear to give a lot of extra an incentive to the current rules. Be that as it may, this is on the grounds that the definitions given by the CoP are what contain the quantitative criteria. For example, reference to the ‘not so distant future’ is given a numerical estimation of being over five years, yet under ten years. Subsequently, these exact models tight the extent of the rules, just as acquaint an increasingly logical methodology with the posting system. ii. Objectivity of the FLC: Regardless of whether the FLC are fruitful in killing political contribution from posting choices is combative. The quantifiable terms of the criteria exhibit an endeavor to settle on posting choices as deductively objective as could reasonably be expected. The plainly characterized terms intend to confine tact during the basic leadership process. Nonetheless, the CoP recognizes that species all unfathomably vary from one another and are impacted by case-explicit interests. This is outlined by their permission that the figures are just approximations and must be deciphered during their application, which brings about further issues of circumspection emerging from the criteria. The FLC don’t make simply target rules for basic lear even leave the Convention. Natural proof gives conceivable defenses to why certain choices are being taken, which considers household backing on disputable points. In spite of the fact that the logical criteria itself will most likely be unable to straightforwardly make target basic leadership, the way that it empowers logical talk at the CoP is a backhanded achievement. Political perspectives and inspirations can never be completely rejected, as choices taken by individuals unavoidably include abstract opin>

Is this question part of your Assignment?

We can help

Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.

We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals

Header Button Label: Get Started NowGet Started Header Button Label: View writing samplesView writing samples