http://www.imdb.com/
Click on the link and watch ”Catch me If you Can”. After watching the film, write 2 or 2 1/2 pages answering the following below
TITLE:
DESCRIPTION OF CRIME AS COVERED IN THE FILM:
SUMMARY OF THE PLOT (DRAMA) OR SUMMARY OF INFORMATIONAL POINTS (DOCUMENTARY):
YOUR CONCLUSIONS/OBSERVATIONS:
Review the Intake Assessment Form.
Create a fictional history of an inmate or offender who has an alcohol or substance abuse disorder to use for this assignment.
APA 7th Edition: The Basics of APA In-text Citations | Scribbr ????
Here are examples of models:
– The Social Learning Model
– The Biopsychosocial Model
– The Community-Based Prevention Model
– The Harm Reduction Model
– The Trauma-Informed Care Model
Various models of substance abuse prevention, intervention, and rehabilitation are available for the delivery of support services for justice-involved individuals with addiction and substance abuse issues. It is important to understand how and when these various models can be applied to various diverse populations. Much information about a client’s situation can be obtained through intake interviews with the client. In this assignment, you will explore the types of information you can learn about your client through an intake interview, and discover how to apply substance abuse prevention, intervention, and rehabilitation models to such a situation.
Create a 1,200 word paper
Include An Introduction and Conclusion
You should:
Include 2 references.
Format any citations in your presentation according to APA guidelines.
CPSS/420 v2
Intake Assessment Form
CPSS/420 v2
Page 2 of 2
Intake staff shall review each completed intake assessment completed for each program participant. The intake assessment may help identify a program participant’s treatment needs, but it is the responsibility of staff to gather additional information in the following areas: Social supports, economic resources (including health insurance or Medicaid availability), the program participant’s family history, education, employment history, criminal history, legal status, medical history, alcohol use and other drug use history, and finally previous treatment programs.
Intake assessments should include the evaluation of substance use disorders; the evaluation of alcohol use disorders, and the assessment of treatment needs. This information is utilized to create client driven, clinically supported treatment plans that are SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realist and Timelined)
Client’s First Name:
Client’s Last Name:
Date of Birth:
Insurance Type:
Client’s Preferred Name:
Admission Date:
Emergency Contact:
Relationship:
Contact Address (Street, City, State, Zip):
Contact Phone Number:
Release for Emergency Contact obtained for this time period:
Mention ‘Yes’ against what is relevant:
Male:
Female:
Intersex:
Gender queer:
Gender non-conforming:
Male to female:
Female to male:
Other (Specify):
Unknown or declined to state:
Mention ‘Yes’ against what is relevant:
Male:
Female:
Intersex:
Gender queer:
Gender non-conforming:
Male to female:
Female to male:
Other:
Unknown or declined to state:
Mention ‘Yes’ against what is relevant:
Him:
Her:
They:
Other:
Unknown:
Why has the client been referred?
Treatment counselor:
Fill in appropriate details for each.
|
Check if ever used: |
Age at first use: |
None or denies |
Current Use |
Current Abuse |
Current Dependence |
In Recovery |
Client-perceived Problem? Write Y or N |
|
Alcohol |
|||||||
|
Amphetamines (Speed/Uppers, etc.) |
|||||||
|
Cocaine/Crack |
|||||||
|
Opiates (Heroin, Oxy, Methadone, Suboxone) |
|||||||
|
Hallucinogens (LSD, Mushrooms, Ecstasy, Molly) |
|||||||
|
Sleeping pills, Benzos, Valium, or similar |
|||||||
|
PSP (Phencyclidine) or Designer Drugs (GHB) |
|||||||
|
Inhalants (paint, gas, glue, aerosols) |
|||||||
|
Marijuana, Hashish. DABS |
|||||||
|
Tobacco, nicotine, vaping, chew |
|||||||
|
Caffeine (energy drinks, sodas, coffee, etc.) |
|||||||
|
Over the counter |
|||||||
|
Other substances |
|||||||
|
Complimentary alternative medication |
|
Type of Previous Recovery Treatment (Inpatient, Outpatient, Residential, Detoxification) |
Name of Previous Treatment Facility |
Dates of Previous Treatment |
Treatment Completed (Yes or No) |
|
Medical Provider |
Name: |
Phone #: |
Last Date of Service: |
|
Primary Physician: |
|||
|
Other medical provider(s) |
Date records requested:
From whom, if applicable:
General Info:
Baseline weight:
Weight changes:
BP:
Mention ‘Yes’ wherever relevant
|
Condition |
Cardiovascular |
Respiratory |
Genital, urinary, bladder |
Gastro-intestinal bowel |
Nervous system |
Musculoskeletal |
Gyneco logy |
Skin |
Endocrine |
|
Chest pain |
|||||||||
|
Hypertension |
|||||||||
|
Hypotension |
|||||||||
|
Palpitation |
|||||||||
|
Smoking |
|||||||||
|
Bronchitis |
|||||||||
|
Asthma |
|||||||||
|
COPD |
|||||||||
|
COVID |
|||||||||
|
Incontinence |
|||||||||
|
Nocturia |
|||||||||
|
UTI |
|||||||||
|
Retention |
|||||||||
|
Urgency |
|||||||||
|
Heartburn |
|||||||||
|
Diarrhea |
|||||||||
|
Constipation |
|||||||||
|
Nausea |
|||||||||
|
Vomiting |
|||||||||
|
Ulcers |
|||||||||
|
Pancreatitis |
|||||||||
|
Headache |
|||||||||
|
TBI/LOC |
|||||||||
|
Seizures |
|||||||||
|
Memory |
|||||||||
|
Concentration |
|||||||||
|
Back pain |
|||||||||
|
Broken bones |
|||||||||
|
Arthritis |
|||||||||
|
Mobility issues |
|||||||||
|
Pregnant |
|||||||||
|
STD |
|||||||||
|
Menopause |
|||||||||
|
Scar |
|||||||||
|
Lesion |
|||||||||
|
Lice |
|||||||||
|
Dermatitis |
|||||||||
|
Burns |
|||||||||
|
Diabetes |
|||||||||
|
Thyroid |
|||||||||
|
Significant accident |
|||||||||
|
Injuries |
|||||||||
|
Surgeries |
|||||||||
|
Hospitalizations |
|||||||||
|
Physical disability |
|||||||||
|
Chronic illness |
|||||||||
|
HIV |
|||||||||
|
Liver disease |
Write details against what is relevant:
Significant accident
Injuries:
Surgeries:
Hospitalizations:
Physical disability:
Chronic illness:
HIV:
Liver disease:
For example, acupuncture, herbs, supplements, etc.
|
Date: |
Provider/Type: |
Reason for Treatment: |
Outcome (Was it helpful and why) |
(Include all prescribed, OTC, holistic/alternative remedies)
|
Rx Name |
Effectiveness Side Effects |
Dosage |
Date Started |
Prescriber |
Current |
Past |
Psychotropic or Nonpsychotropic |
Allergies/Adverse Reactions/ Sensitivities:
Food:
Drugs (Rx/OTC/ILLICT):
Unknown:
Other:
Date of last physical exam:
Date of last dental exam:
Referral made to primary care or specialty (Yes or No. If yes, list):
1.
2.
3.
Additional Medical Information:
Yes or No:
Yes or No:
Mention ‘Yes’ against what is relevant:
Aggressive/Violent Behaviors:
Self-Harm:
Client referred to crisis services line:
Mental health disorders that are pre-existing, contribute to substance use/abuse, or have been exacerbated by substance use:
Family problems that are contributing to, or are exacerbated by, substance abuse. Mention ‘Yes’ against what is relevant and describe below:
Arguments:
Domestic violence:
Family abuses alcohol/drugs:
Family worried about client’s use of drugs/alcohol:
Separated or divorced:
|
Social problems that are contributing to, or are exacerbated by, substance abuse. Describe below and check severity: |
Mild Y/N |
Moderate Y/N |
Severe Y/N |
|
Describe economic problems that are contributing to, or are exacerbated by, substance use: |
Mild Y/N |
Moderate Y/N |
Severe Y/N |
|
Describe cultural factors which may influence presenting problems: (may include ethnicity, race religion, spiritual practice, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, living environment, etc.: |
Mild Y/N |
Moderate Y/N |
Severe Y/N |
|
Describe educational problems that are exacerbated by substance abuse: |
Mild |
Moderate |
Severe |
Highest level of education completed:
Client currently employed? (Yes/ No):
If so, list employer and job:
1.
2.
Problems Caused by Substance Abuse:
Add “Yes” after anything substance use/abuse has caused or contributed to:
Absenteeism:
Tardiness:
Accidents:
Working while hung-over:
Trouble concentrating:
Decreased job performance:
Consumed substances while at work:
Lost job due to substance abuse:
No work problem:
Comments:
Criminal History Table
|
Criminal justice history/violent incidents of individual and/or family: |
Within last 90 days (Yes or No) |
Past (Yes or No) |
|
Assault on persons (DV) |
||
|
Threat to persons |
||
|
Property damage |
||
|
DUI |
Legal Status Table
|
Legal history: |
Within last 90 days (Yes or No) |
Past (Yes or No) |
|
Probation |
||
|
Parole |
||
|
Adjudicated |
||
|
Diversion |
Other:
Describe criminal justice involvement.
Note: More space is provided in the Addendum
|
Date |
Type of crime |
Outcome |
Other |
Describe any relevant family involvement with criminal justice.
Note: More space is provided in the Addendum
|
Date |
Relation to client |
Type of crime |
Outcome |
Other |
Write ‘Not Applicable’ if not applicable.
Client currently in a relationship? If yes, list length or other comments below:
History of sexual abuse?
History of physical abuse?
Does client have children? If yes, list age of each below:
Child 1:
Child 2:
Child 3:
Child 4:
Child 5:
Describe assessed knowledge of parenting skills.
Describe assessed education/knowledge of harmful effects that alcohol and drugs have on the caregiver and fetus, or caregiver and infant.
List parenting skills most needed.
Does client need or will client receive childcare? Answer yes or no:
Client needs to access the following ancillary services which are medically necessary. Provide comments below: (Mention ‘Yes’ against what is relevant)
Dental services:
Social services:
Community services:
Educational/Vocational training:
Transportation (or arranging for) to and from medically necessary treatment:
Other: Specify:
Instructions: Consider all information gathered in the intake assessment for the treatment plan formulation. The formulation should identify each problem that is contributing to client’s alcohol or substance use disorder. All issues identified during the intake assessment process must be listed as a problem statement on the treatment plan (SMART goals). However, some problem statements can de deferred as determined appropriate by the treatment staff.
Use this area to report additional criminal justice involvement, etc.
Copyright 2021 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2021 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
In Module 10, we took a look at data collection involving secondary and official data, which is commonplace in criminal justice research that involves agency-level response and policy evaluation questions. The assigned readings for this module commented on the validity and reliability of secondary and official data, with some interesting pros and cons for each type.
In this week's discussion, consider this hypothetical: let's say that you read two different studies about crime trends, published at the same time, one that concludes that crime is on the rise and one that concludes that crime is declining. You notice in the methodology that one of these studies utilizes survey-based data collection, and one utilizes official data that comes from law enforcement. How do you reach a conclusion about whether crime is actually increasing or decreasing? What factor(s) are most important for you to help determine the facts? Which factor(s) that represent flaws or limitations in survey data and/or official data are most likely to diminish or negate the findings in either of the two hypothetical studies? Use material from class/readings to help make your argument, if possible!
Rigorous primary studies and meta-analyses have found that rehabilitative correctional interventions/treatment programs can significantly reduce recidivism. However, these same studies have found that there is a great deal of variability regarding the effectiveness of rehabilitative interventions. What does this variability mean for practice? How does the risk, needs, responsivity (RNR) model help make sense of this variability? Finally, given this reality, how should rehabilitative programs be implemented in contemporary correctional practice to maximize their recidivism reduction potential?
Explain deterrence theory as it applies to the Brutalizing Effect.
Discuss your opinion on the support or the abolition of the death penalty to deter violent crime and your recommendation for a punishment that not only prevents violent crime but deters it. The class text and in particular Chapter 7 and the PowerPoint lesson have pertinent and relevant information on the subject of the death penalty and deterrence. You must support your opinions and conclusions with credible references as mentioned in the syllabus. The following concepts will help you formulate the sections in your paper:
Students are expected to critically analyze and evaluate the death penalty topic listed above.
It is important to answer all of the questions, support your opinions and statements with at least two credible references. Cite the text in APA format and Include a Reference Page. Each question should be a section; an easy APA format to use to accurately answer each question. Of the total works cited, half should be from academic journals or books published by an academic press. Students must support their statements and opinions as they cite the text with at least two credible references. A conclusion section (APA) will solidify your statements and opinions. Works cited and the references should be in APA format at the end of each mini-paper.
The paper must be double-spaced, with 1.0-inch margins, using Times New Roman 12 point type and at least two
1 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
CHAPTER 7
GENERAL DETERRENCE AND THE DEATH PENALTY
Deathquest: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Capital Punishment in the United States, 5th Edition
Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis. All Rights Reserved.
2 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
General Deterrence • The belief that people in general can be
prevented from engaging in crime by punishing specific individuals and making examples of them
• The broad deterrence question is whether executions prevent other people (other than the person executed) from committing capital crimes.
3 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
Importance of General Deterrence
• Until recently, reason cited most often by death penalty supporters
• Research shows that compelling evidence of no deterrent effect does not have much effect on death penalty support.
• No longer seems to be an important reason for support. In a recent poll, only 32% of respondents said that they thought the death penalty was a deterrent.
4 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
Reason for Believing in the Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty
(Van den Haag) • Our penal system rests on the
proposition that more severe penalties are more deterrent than less severe penalties
• Thus, the most severe penalty, the death penalty, would have the greatest deterrent effect
5 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
Counter to Van den Haag’s Argument
• The highly influential 18th Century philosopher, Cesare Beccaria believed that life imprisonment, or what called “perpetual servitude” was a greater deterrent than the death penalty.
• He describe the practice as a “useless prodigality of torments” and that it gave an “example of barbarity to men.”
6 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
Counter to Van den Haag’s Argument (cont.)
• Although more severe penalties are generally more deterrent than less severe penalties, beyond a point, added severity may reduce deterrence (e.g. through jury nullification).
• Is the death penalty the most severe penalty? (More severe than life imprisonment?)
7 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
Important Question for Death Penalty Proponents
• Not whether capital punishment is the severest punishment
• But rather what punishment should be the severest allowed by law?
8 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
What Does the Evidence Show? • There is no evidence showing that
capital punishment deters more than an alternative non-capital punishment, such as life imprisonment without opportunity of parole (LWOP).
• Available evidence indicates that capital punishment makes no discernible difference on homicide rates.
9 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
Evidence: Pre-1975 Research • Comparison of murder rates, police
killings, and prison murders of contiguous states with and without death penalty
• Comparison of murder rates before and after abolition or reinstatement of death penalty
• Comparison of short-term murder trends before and after highly publicized executions of convicted murderers
10 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
1975: Ehrlich Finds A General Deterrent Effect
• Examined the simultaneous effect of several variables on homicide rates, 1933—1969
• Concluded: An additional execution per year over the period may have resulted, on average, in 7 or 8 fewer murders
• Research highly criticized
11 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
Post-1975 Deterrence Research
• A few methodologically inferior studies have found a general deterrent effect (also new econometric studies).
• Numerous studies (of varying quality) have failed to find a general deterrent effect.
• A few studies have found a counterdeterrent or brutalizing effect.
12 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
Post-1975 Deterrence Research (cont.)
• Study of homicides in Texas from January 1994–December 2005 found – that for executions to have a deterrent
effect, a large number of executions must be conducted
– Most of any deterrent effect of executions on homicides occurs soon after execution is announced
13 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
Post-1975 Deterrence Research (cont.)
• In 2008, Yang and Lester carried out a meta- analysis of 104 capital punishment deterrence studies. They found – Only 95 had adequate data to report an effect size – 60 found a deterrent effect – 35 found a brutalization effect – Many of the time-series and panel studies showed
a deterrent effect; whereas cross sectional studies did not show such an effect.
14 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
Post-1975 Deterrence Research (cont.) • Many of the newer studies have methodological
problems: – They do not differentiate between the types of
homicide – Some include non-negligent manslaughter – None of the studies controlled for auto-regression – Few of the studies controlled for law enforcement’s
ability to clear capital cases – The studies ignore large amounts of missing data – All the studies are indirect tests of the hypotheses – None of the studies determine the marginal effects of
capital punishment as opposed to life imprisonment
15 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
Post-1975 Deterrence Research (cont.)
• In their review of the newer econometric studies Donohue and Wolfers stated: – “Execution policy drives little of the year-
to-year variation in homicide rates.”
16 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
Counterarguments to Studies That Show No General Deterrent Effect
• Statistical evidence used was unreliable.
• Most law enforcement officials continue to favor capital punishment.
• There is inherent logic in the deterrent power of the threat of death.
• The number of homicides increased when number of executions decreased (mid-1960s through the 1970s).
17 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
Counterarguments to Studies That Show No General Deterrent Effect
(cont.) • Deterrent effect has been reduced
to nothing in recent years (and thus does not show up in the research) because it has not been imposed often or quickly enough to get desired response
18 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
Assumptions and Problems with Deterrence Theory
• Most murderers probably do not rationally calculate the consequences of their actions before they act.
• They doubt that they will be caught. • They may not know what constitutes
capital murder. • If they have killed before, they may not
care.
19 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
Counterdeterrence or Brutalization
• A few studies have found a counterdeterrent or brutalizing effect.
• The death penalty may cause murders rather than deter them.
20 Copyright © 2016, Taylor & Francis.
All Rights Reserved.
Counterdeterrence or Brutalization: How?
• The suicide-murder syndrome • The executioner syndrome • The pathological desire to die
by execution • To gain attention and notoriety • Diversion of resources from more
effective violence prevention
Explain in substantial detail the significance and importance of general deterrence in Capital Cases. That is, does the death Penalty Punishment reduce violent crime such as murders?
