Login
Menu

The use of cameras to prevent a specific type of crime.

Home / Blog / The use of cameras to prevent a specific type of crime.

The use of cameras to prevent a specific type of crime.

The use of cameras to prevent a specific type of crime.

The instructions and rubric will be in the files attached please read them carefully and follow the

The instructions and rubric will be in the files attached please read them carefully and follow the instructions References: You will need to locate, identify, and discuss at least 8 different peer-reviewed, empirical journal articles

Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith J. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 7-27.

 

Catchpole, R. E. H., & Gretton, H. M. (2003). The predictive validity of risk assessment with violent young offenders: A 1-year examination of criminal outcome. Criminal Justice Behavior, 30, 688-708.

 

Corrado, R. R., Vincent, G. M., Hart, S. D., & Cohen, I. M. (2004). Predictive validity of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version for general and violent recidivism. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 5-22.

 

Dembo, R., Schmeidler, J., Nini-Gough, B., Chin Sue, C., Borden, P., & Manning, D. (1998). Predictors of recidivism to a juvenile assessment center: A three year study. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 7(3), 57-77.

 

Holsinger, A., Lurigio, A., & Latessa, E. (2001). Practitioners’ guide to understanding the basis of assessing offender risk. Federal Probation, 65(1), 46-50.

 

Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., Barrett, D. E., & Flaska, T. (2004). Background and psychological variables associated with recidivism among adolescent males: A 3-year investigation. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12(1), 23-29.

 

Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2005). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(2), 263-290.

 

Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correction programs? Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 77-93.

 

Meyers, J. R., & Schmidt, F. (2008). Predictive validity of the Structured Assessment for Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) with juvenile offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(3), 344-355.

 

Penney, S. R., Lee, Z., & Moretti, M. M. (2010). Gender differences in risk factors for violence: An examination of the predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 390-404.

 

Schmidt, F., Campbell, M. A., & Houlding, C. (2011). Comparative analyses of the YLS/CMI, SAVRY, and PCL:YV in adolescent offenders: A 10-year follow-up into adulthood. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9(1), 23-42.

 

Schwalbe, C. S., Fraser, M. W., & Day, S. H. (2007). Predictive validity of the joint risk matrix with juvenile offenders: A focus on gender and race/ethnicity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(3), 348-361.

Instructions:

This assignment is a research paper.  Pick a specific technology topic (below) and explore this topic in your paper with a review of the scientific literature.  This paper is, essentially, a literature review, which is a summary of the research pertaining to a specific topic. You will provide a discussion of findings from past scholarly research regarding the topic of your assigned position. The literature review should address your topic in detail and only discuss information relevant to your assigned position. This paper should begin with an introduction (2-3 paragraphs).  This is where you present your assigned position and provide a brief discussion of your topic.  Your paper will then give a discussion of the research in greater detail in the “body” of the paper (6-7 pages).   Here, you will talk more specifically about the research and the researcher’s findings.  Finally, you should provide a conclusion (1-2 paragraphs) that provides a summary of the research.

 

Formatting:

  1. Your paper should be typed, double-spaced, in 12-point Times New Roman font. Do not add extra spaces between paragraphs. Make sure to check the spacing defaults in Word and adjust all “spaces after” to zero.
  2. Do not include a title page. Simply put your name in the upper margin of the Word document. No other header is necessary.
  3. Utilize one-inch margins all around the page.
  4. Your paper should be organized. It should follow this format: Introduction, Body, and Conclusion.
  5. Do not use bullets, outlines, or lists.
  6. Do not include pictures, graphs, tables, or any other images.
  7. Do not use pronouns such as you or I.
  8. Include page numbers in the lower right-hand corner of the page.
  9. You must include a reference page. Please use appropriate in-text citations. The reference page does not count toward your page total.
  10. Do not include direct quotes or the title of the article. Furthermore, do not use direct quotes from the articles you select.
  11. Length of paper: This assignment should be 7-8 pages long. Anything short of that will result in a significant loss of points.
  12. References: You will need to locate, identify, and discuss at least 8 different peer-reviewed, empirical journal articles.
  13. Final papers will be submitted to the “dropbox” on Brightspace (D2L). All papers must be submitted as a Microsoft Word file.  Only .doc, .docx, or .rtf files will be acceptable for this assignment.  Students that submit files that are not .rtf, .doc, or .docx will be asked to resubmit their paper and will be subject to a 10-point penalty.

 

Topics (choose one)

  1. The use of electronic monitoring to reduce offender recidivism.
  2. The use of cameras to prevent a specific type of crime.
  3. “Hot spot” policing and crime mapping.
  4. The predictive validity of sex offender risk assessment tools.
  5. Less lethal weapons and police use of force.

 

Some Tips

  1. Formatting matters. Pay attention to the specific instructions listed above.  If you fail to format your paper as instructed, you will lose points.
  2. Do not ask rhetorical questions. The purpose of this paper is to provide the reader information about the topic and not to ask questions.  Students often believe they are making a point by asking a question, but instead the message they are trying to convey is muddled, if not completely lost.  For example, if I had written “Are rhetorical questions acceptable?” there may have been ambiguity about whether rhetorical questions are acceptable.  Instead, when I write the statement “Do not ask rhetorical questions” no gray area is left and my point is crystal clear.

 

In Conclusion

This paper is:

  1. A professional endeavor that should be well written and organized in essay fashion.
  2. A synthesis of the information about the research topic.

 

This paper is not:

  1. Your opinions about the criminal justice system, police, criminal courts, the corrections system, or the position you have selected.
  2. Written on any given criminal justice topic; that is, it must pertain to your chosen topic.

Research Paper Grading Rubric Criteria Exemplary (9-10 points) Good (6-8 points) Acceptable (3-5 points) Unacceptable (0-2 points) Purpose The writer’s central purpose or argument is readily apparent to the reader The writing has a clear purpose or argument, but may sometimes digress from it The central purpose or argument is not consistency clear throughout the paper The purpose or argument is generally unclear Content Balanced presentation of relevant and legitimate information that clearly supports a central purpose or argument. Reader gains important insights. Information provides reasonable support for a central purpose or argument and displays evidence of a basic analysis of a significant topic. Reader gains some insights. Information supports a central purpose or argument at times. Analysis is basic or general. Reader gains few insights. Central purpose or argument not clearly identified. Analysis is vague or not evident. Reader is confused and may be misinformed. Organization The ideas are arranged logically to support the purpose or argument. They flow smoothly from one to another and are clearly linked to each other. The reader can follow the line of reasoning. The ideas are arranged logically to support the central purpose or argument. They are usually clearly linked to each other. For the most part, the reader can follow the line of reasoning. In general, the writing is arranged logically, although occasionally ideas fail to make sense together. The reader is fairly clear about what the writer intends. The writing is not logically organized. Frequently, ideas fail to make sense together. The reader cannot identify a line of reasoning and loses interest. Quality of References References are primarily peer-reviewed professional journals or other approved sources (e.g., government documents, agency manuals, etc.). The reader is confident that the information and ideas can be trusted. Although most of the references are professionally legitimate, a few are questionable (e.g., internet sources, newspapers, etc.). The reader is uncertain of the reliability of some of the sources. Most of the references are from sources that are not peerreviewed and have uncertain reliability. The reader doubts the accuracy of much of the material presented. There are virtually no sources that are professionally reliable. The reader seriously doubts the value of the material and stops reading. Grammar and Spelling The writing is free or almost free of errors There are occasional errors, but they don’t represent a major distraction or obscure meaning. The writing has many errors and the reader is distracted by them. There are so many errors that meaning is obscured. The reader is confused and stops reading.

 

 

 

Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!