Explain the differences between the treatment and punishment concepts. Build the case for which one you believe has the stronger position based on your research and the crime or criminal justice issue you selected to study. Review the juvenile crime statistics between three cities or states in three different parts of the country (e.g., Boston, Chicago, and Seattle) for a crime or criminal justice issue. Incorporate a graphic display to present your findings. Be sure to include at least three demographic items, such as gender, ethnicity, race, education, or socio-economic status, in your analysis. Ensure you standardize your data (i.e., 1:1000: 1:10,000: or 1: 100,000) and incorporate the scale in a key for each chart. Identify the prevailing thought in the city or state: Is it treatment or punishment? Analyze the differences in the recidivism rates between the cities or states you have selected? Is recidivism the best indicator of success or failure or should we use a different indicator? In Chapters 2 and 3 of the text, our author addresses biological, psychological and sociological theories to help explain juvenile delinquency. Evaluate which of these theories would best support your thesis. Support which juvenile justice intervention strategy would be effective to counter the crime or criminal justice issue based on your research? Conclude with a summary of which concept (treatment or punishment) best supports the over arching concept of social justice?
Canada and the United States Ownership of the Arctic Region Distributed: 23rd March, 2015 Last Edited: ninth January, 2018 Disclaimer: This paper has been put together by an understudy. This isn’t a case of the work composed by our expert exposition scholars. You can see tests of our expert work here. Any suppositions, discoveries, conclusions or suggestions communicated in this material are those of the writers and don’t really mirror the perspectives of UK Essays. The Arctic district has been a dismissed region for a long time. Anyway with the ongoing disclosure of normal and mineral assets in the Arctic, nations, for example, the United States, Russia and other European nations have been introducing their distinct fascination in the driving rain an area. In the article Arctic Meltdown, composed by Scott Borgerson, the writer talks about the monetary and the security results caused by the Global Warming.Global warming has added to the liquefying of the icecaps this prompted the finding of forty-four billion barrels of petroleum gas fluids in the solidified territory of the Arctic Circle. The revelation has raised the battle between Russia, United States, Canada and other European nations over which state lawfully have these assets making the most critical “regional debate of the century.”The article Arctic Meltdown, discusses the political issues caused in the Arctic making obstruction to the transaction made between nations asserting its ownership of the assets. In spite of the fact that the softening of the icecaps presents promising vitality markets and the upset of worldwide delivery, significant issues, for example, the likelihood of war over the region in the Arctic locale are at present being ignored by the U.S. State Department and by the U.S. National Security Council. Since there are no legitimate structures accessible in reacting to the considerable levels of ice-softening and to a composed improvement of the Arctic locale, the region is accordingly in peril of being misused by a few cash and power hungry countries.This demonstrates that if a ground-breaking nation, for example, the United States does not venture up and address the difficulties faces in the Arctic, the issues clear will keep on worsening making a plausibility of a fight between countries in want to control the inexhaustible measure of assets accessible. This paper will utilize the theoretical models of worldwide legislative issues, for example, authenticity and complex reliance in understanding distinctive measurements apparent to the present circumstance in the Arctic. Thus will analyze on how the Canadian and U.S. governments should approach the issue. Outline of the circumstance in the Arctic area The liquefying of the icecap has started prior issues identifying with the land claims made by Russia, U.S and different nations in Europe, testing Canada’s Arctic power in view of the expansion enthusiasm of outside conditions of the asset accessible in the area. Ice tops in the Arctic are dissolving thus more common assets and minerals are being found. This has permitted a production of shorter transportation courses that could conceivably spare billions of dollars every year for delivery companies.According to a gauge led by the U.S. geographical study and Statoil-Hydro of Norway, the Arctic conveys around one fourth of the world’s remaining and “unfamiliar” oil and gas sediments.Countries fight over the region for the reason that it can monetarily flourish a nation accordingly expanding the state’s political impact and specialist. This craving to accomplish control is installed in each state, which is the reason strain is lighted among nations aching to accomplish privileges of the Arctic. U.S and Canada relations in the Arctic Canada and the United States’ relationship have demonstrated some disappointment in seeking after its own particular enthusiasm for the Arctic. The two states show energy on the extraction of the assets and development of a key military area in the Arctic.Such perception has raised a noteworthy number of issues, for example, the control over marine transportation in the Northwest Passage and the oppressive of contamination issues. The pickle establishes in 1969 and 1970, when the utilization of the voyages S.S Manhattan, a U.S. tanker and C.G.S. Polar Sea, a U.S. icebreaker spurred the issue of Canada’s sovereign control over its Arctic district that empowered a civil argument nationally.The disagreement regarding Canadian sway of the Arctic waters prompted the sanctioning of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act that enables Canada to manage over contamination inside a 100 mile zone. In 1970, the despondent United States reacts back expressing that tolerating the demonstration would “risk the flexibility of route basic for United States exercises worldwide.”However in 1988, Canada and the United States consented to an arrangement on “Ice Co-activity,” that permitted the U.S. icebreakers to voyage through the Arctic with a few impediments and assent acquired from the Canadian government. The claim of an area in the Arctic by a few nations has tested Canada’s power over the Arctic. In endeavor to defeat the difficulties, Canada committed fifty-one million dollars to encourage characterize and delineate fringe of its mainland retire in the Arctic to correspond upon the locales spread out in the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea otherwise called UNCLOS.The UNCLOS is an organization of law and summon that manages the world’s seas and oceans by setting up rules overseeing employments everything being equal and its resources.Canada confirmed the UNCLOS in 2003; the United States then again has not affirmed the UNCLOS despite the fact that the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations voted in 2004 supporting the endorsement. To handle the ebb and flow emergency in the Arctic domain, it is basic for United States to think of a concurrence with Canada to help keep the heightening of contentions in regards to the ocean water lines and its resources.Borgenson states in the article the “Cold Meltdown,” that the “choices made by the Arctic powers in the coming years will in this way significantly shape the fate of the area for a considerable length of time.” He trusts that without the U.S. partaking in the basic leadership to discover answers for the cases made by the Arctic forces. Borgenson demonstrates that without the U.S’s administration in this issue, the “area could eject in an equipped frantic dash for its assets.” Pragmatist hypothesis ways to deal with the contention Political pragmatists in worldwide legislative issues endeavor to get control using violence.They trust that all through history countries have either overwhelmingly arranged for viciousness or either convalescing from it because of war.The applied hypothesis authenticity depends intensely on three suspicions; 1) states are driving performing artists and go about as objective divisions; 2) the utilization of power is successful to get control as demonstrated all through the past [historic wars]; 3) and assume that progression in governmental issues “high legislative issues” manages over “low governmental issues” of financial and open dealings.In expansion, pragmatists accept that the universal framework is in a persistent condition of rebellion; which is the reason ensuring countries claim intrigue is incredibly esteemed in light of the doubt of assention between different states or on-screen characters. In particular, the principle target of authenticity is to get control for the most part using military and monetary means. To break down the circumstance in the Arctic, it is fundamental to interface a portion of the normal for authenticity with the issue. In a few sections, qualities of authenticity can be firmly identified with the relationship of United States and Canada with the issue spinning around the Arctic. Canada claims sway over the Arctic as a result of land and authentic motivations to it. The United States ventures to discover a reason of by one means or another that the nation has rights over the Arctic and its assets. The two states show their own advantages in the locale proposes qualities of authenticity. Complex Interdependence ways to deal with the contention Complex relationship is a hypothesis utilized as a part of worldwide governmental issues that accentuation on the possibility of monetary freedom. The hypothesis incorporates three focal attributes. Right off the bat, the work of “different channels” is unequivocally critical for the way that it joins social orders in transnational, interstate and trans-administrative undertakings. Besides, in complex reliance hypothesis, progressive system is missing in which military security is minimum considered along these lines does not manage the agenda.The “nonappearance of chain of importance” takes into account the centralization of different issues relating to residential arrangement. In conclusion, the utilization of military power is absent between government to government conflicts.Military drive in complex association can be incidental on working out on debate on financial issues in the midst of members of an organization together, anyway might be fundamental for that “collusions political and military relations with an opponent coalition.” Speculations of complex relationship can be firmly related with the issue as of now dwelling in the Arctic locale. For example, nations keen on the Arctic just show enthusiasm to a nation or district if the state profits by it. For this situation, United States exhibits their enthusiasm for the Arctic district as a result of the mass measure of normal assets the locale conveys. By ensuring their interests, United States and Russia and other cold states are taking measures, for example, furnishing icebreakers to anchor their cases. Canada subsequently counters by setting up security satellites observation framework to search for ships meddling in its waters. Another motivation behind why complex association hypothesis can be firmly connected with this circumstance is a result of methodologies Canada and the United States are taking to help achieve a choice. The U.S.- Canada Arctic Policy was an endeavor to join interests in the two nations over the Arctic.Although no arrangements were made among the two states, the two states attempted to approach the issue without danger>