Crime is a matter that has plagued society since the beginning of documented time. Crime originates in vast proportions and alarmingly stems from childhood. Traumatic events and less than ideal life circumstances perpetuate severe damage in juveniles and provide explanation for delinquency. Crimes committed by juveniles pose a distressing threat to society as a whole. By evaluating the effects juvenile delinquency has on the community, victims, and families, along with analyzing methods of deterrence, the future of the juvenile justice system can be predicted and a vast overhaul of juvenile justice can ensue.
History
Juvenile delinquency has been a serious dilemma in society throughout the ages. Particularly during the American Revolution, the justice system was stalwartly influenced by England (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). The code in which to punish criminals was unsteady at best without any formal reason governing how to deter and punish crime. Men, women, juveniles, and the insane were commonly thrust together in prisons and jails (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). This haphazard approach led to much disarray within the justice system. Transition proceeded to elicit hope within the broken justice system during the early 1800s when rural life was dissipating and delinquency was on the rise (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008).
Slow-churning change weaved in and out of the justice system in a manic fashion to try and solve the delinquency problem that was spreading among communities. It was quickly realized that life at home bore many consequences for juveniles, as psychological analysis and psychiatry began to advance more quickly. Social reform began to explode in the nineteenth century and this perpetuated many facilities for delinquent and troubled youths (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). This brought a new understanding about the sensitive needs of juveniles and the importance of rehabilitation. The first juvenile court in the United States was launched in Cook County, Illinois in 1899 (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). Cases were handled as non-criminal and programs were put into practice to aid in deterring juveniles from following a criminal path. This encouraged other states to follow suit and the juvenile justice system was flourishing a century later.
The juvenile justice system started to work out the kinks around the 1960s after the Supreme Court began to hear some cases and ruled in ways that would significantly shape juvenile justice. The first case heard by the Supreme Court was Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966). This case involved the violation of rights of the defendant and subsequently influenced the activation of due process in juvenile court (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). From this point forward, it has been a dire focus to implement the proper rights to juvenile defendants to ensure justice. Through a glum view of the history of juvenile justice and the many failures that has led to pestilence, it is clear that innovative techniques must be implemented with powerful strategies to combat juvenile delinquency.
Effects
According to Mike Castle, the findings of the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention show that “police annually arrest approximately 2.2 million juveniles; 1 .7 million cases are referred to juvenile courts; an estimated 400,000 young people cycle through juvenile detention centers; and about 100,000 youth are detained in juvenile jails, prisons, boot camps, and other residential facilities each night” (Castle, 2010, p.1). Additionally, according to Congress, juveniles accounted for 13% of all drug abuse violations in 1999 (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office, 2002). These staggering facts show that the effects of juvenile delinquency are plentiful. Juveniles suffer from criminal behavior, as do their families, their victims and the victim’s families, as well as society and the justice system. Therefore, the betterment of the juvenile justice system is a concern for society as a whole, not excluding the individuals affected directly by a particular criminal act or juvenile delinquent.
Judges are a chief factor in the juvenile justice system and play an impacting role in the lives of each juvenile that is seen before the court. Because juvenile court typically does not use a jury, the judge has the final decision that decides the fait of the juvenile (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). Because of this fact, it is essential that the judge has special training in the workings of juvenile justice with a background in psychological concentration that can aid in the treatment of each unique juvenile case.
The families of the juvenile play an important role in the sentencing process. Family members can aid in the determination of probation and necessary requirements that are given as well as whether the juvenile is incarcerated in a juvenile facility. If the juvenile is released on probationary terms, the family must be responsible for the well being of the juvenile in addition to making certain the terms of probation are being met (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008).
Juveniles may be required to pay monetary damages to the victim of the crime (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). This helps with retribution and deterrence and gives the juvenile offender a sense of responsibility for his or her actions. The victims have a keen role in the sentencing of the juvenile as well. Families of victims usually face consequences much like the victim, and the suffering from the crime bleeds to many others close to the victim (Garcia, & McDowell, 2010).
It is difficult for a young juvenile offender to see the broader picture of their criminal behavior. Yet, society as a whole suffers greatly from the crimes of juveniles. The social and financial repercussions of juvenile crimes are immense. As stated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “allowing one youth to leave school for a life of crime and of drug abuse costs society $1,700,000 to $2,300,000 annually” (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office, 2002, p.4). Because influence is a strong factor in the lives of juveniles, siblings of delinquents and other youths associated with a juvenile delinquent may be negatively persuaded to enact similar crimes. When the juvenile exuding criminal behavior becomes an adult, it is highly likely he or she will continue crime if not properly rehabilitated. This will cause more financial burden to society and will perpetuate more generations of juvenile delinquents stemming from the kin of that particular criminal (Taylor, et al., 2010). One study elicited alarming results between the collaboration of young juvenile delinquency and adulthood divorce (Forgatch, et al., 2009). In regards to this particular study, Marion Forgatch, et al. concluded that, “in the theoretical model, ineffective parenting
practices and deviant peer association serve as the primary mechanisms for growth in adolescent delinquent behavior and early arrests (Forgatch, et al., p. 1). Therefore, it is quite momentous to develop prevention strategies while a juvenile delinquent is still young and the criminal activity is just beginning as to eradicate the unnecessary but inevitable corollaries that will be a result.
Prevention Methods
Juvenile justice is a sensitive area because of the nature of the offenders. Juveniles are not fully developed intellectually, socially, or physically and this poses a difficulty for the juvenile justice system. Typically, the United States has been known for utilizing punishment as the general instrument for justice for over forty years. However, studies have shown that punishment alone promotes failure in preventing juvenile crime and even shows a destructive pattern of backfiring (Taylor, et al., 2010). Consequently, it is indispensable to acknowledge the special circumstances that help attract juveniles to criminal tendencies. Preventing these patterns of destructive behavior is surely a difficult challenge.
Family strengthening is one of the most significant stratagems to defeat juvenile delinquency. Studies have shown that adequate parenting and powerful family dynamics reduce the possibility of criminal behavior among juveniles (Koffman, et al., 2009). The benefits of a structured family life are plentiful. The juvenile will experience love, support, discipline and unique connection with family members that share the same environment and conditions of life. Aside from these obvious advantages, family and parent training programs help protect and improve family relationships in which juvenile delinquents are involved and positive results help to eradicate impulsive, aggressive, and chronically disruptive behavior that leads to social deficiency and subsequent delinquency (Piquero, et al., 2009). In one particular meta-analytic review of an experimental study involving such a family intervention program showed a reduction in these preexisting conditions in juvenile behavior and a 75% diminution of delinquency among the juvenile participants (Piquero, et al., 2009). Such studies and results show promise for programs designed to strengthen families as these interventions touch on the underlying issues of most juvenile dilemmas. The problem lies within the ability to reach out to each family and to construct a program that fits the needs of the targeted family. Moreover, it is nearly impossible to heal families with abuse and trauma, which are common factors in juvenile delinquency. While it is much more uplifting to rely on the abilities of parents and the responsibilities that adults exercise in determining family values, this is a failing concept in some circumstances.
In the event that family intervention cannot be completed due to a lack of cooperation or unavailable means, after-school programs and community efforts should be put into practice to incorporate positive interaction among juveniles at risk for delinquency. Crime analysis surveys report that most crime carried out by juvenile delinquents peaks between the hours of 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. (Gottfredson, et al., 2004). Implementing structured after-school programs with supplemented programs such as drug rehab, counseling, anger management programs, mentoring, peer discussion groups, conflict management and life skills classes will provide more success and better prevention possibilities among at-risk youths. Triumphs that can be expected among participating juveniles are empowerment, leadership, coping skills and hope for the future (Koffman, et al., 2009). However, such programs cannot replace family influence, and the patterns of behavior that will sporadically occur among youths and juveniles experiencing puberty will need to be carefully dealt with by significant support from after-school interventions. Furthermore, in crime ridden communities, a dependency on such programs may develop, prompting families and parents to rely on the raising of children to be done by governmental, private, and community agencies. Nevertheless, these programs offer hope when there is little, and success has motivated continued application and funding for suitable intervention techniques. Copious funding for such programs, although scarce and difficult to generate in suitable quantities, is mandatory to deliver success within communities with low-income families and economic struggles.
Financial challenges sadly have a strong baring on juvenile behavior. Besides the detrimental conditions that can result from poverty, stress and anger breed in families that cannot make ends meet, perpetuating violence and criminal activity. Assistance programs serve in helping families obtain housing and other necessities of life such as food and medical aid, yet even with such programs, juvenile delinquency still flourishes. Shame and guilt from poverty exists equally when assistance programs are being utilized, as one study established (Garcia, & McDowell, 2010). To stop the cycle of such feelings that inevitably lead to delinquency, innovative programs should be established by Congress to financially aid families while requiring parents and caregivers to obtain training programs and employment counseling. Furthermore, poverty stricken communities will benefit from construction makeovers and designated improvements. Juvenile delinquency will cease considerably as a result of geographical enhancements.
Innovative ideas for preventing juvenile delinquency shall include a consideration of healthy peer interaction. Featured in this concept is a necessary understanding of the high impact of peer influence on juveniles. One particular study with 70 participants, all between the ages of eleven and seventeen years old, showed that peer pressure and persuasion of other similarly aged juveniles had a role in the decisions, actions, and beliefs that the participants engaged in (Cohen, & Piquero, 2009). One of the most powerful intervention programs designed and adopted by various court systems in the United States are those mentoring programs and interventions devised to scare juveniles out of crime. While most of these programs involve adult offenders who install fear and truth into youthful offenders, it is clear that peer influence should be utilized in this concept as well. Unlike adults whom can easily remember their youth and relate to juveniles, it is extremely difficult for juveniles to relate to adults. Therefore, juvenile offenders sentenced, punished, or otherwise handled in court for a crime should be required to participate in a new mentoring program for peers with similar criminal tendencies or other anthropological similarities. A program such as this will most likely show colossal achievements in the prevention of juvenile delinquency.
Future
Juvenile delinquency has been, and will continue to be a continuous threat to future generations. It is highly important to develop creative techniques to prevent juvenile delinquency. Juvenility is a sensitive time in the life of a person; a time in which comprehensive change is possible and a lack of positive change is detrimental. Predictably, new measures of handling juveniles and guaranteeing juvenile rights will be fine-tuned in the court systems over the next century. Technology will continue to be a precedent for court systems and juvenile cases. Perhaps within the next decade, the United States can expect better systems to monitor, detain, and rehabilitate juveniles through comprehensive programs that are designed and tested with scientific evidence. Nationally, jurisdictions will collaborate to bring forth a more cohesive juvenile justice system that can be easily measured, observed, and improved. While more juvenile delinquents can be expected in the next century, more detention facilities for juveniles will be developed. Although this will seem to be a negative progression, more facilities will give the opportunity for creative programs to develop to be structurally appropriate for the differing circumstances of juvenile offenders. Likewise, more juvenile specific facilities will mean less juveniles being thrust into adult prisons. Additionally, it can be expected that psychology will have a more prominent role in the implementation of justice to enable understanding and treatment for all juvenile types.
For juveniles today, the traditions and patterns that transition a child through adolescence and adulthood are obscured with many negative factors. Broken families, violence, abuse, and poverty promise to destroy the stability a juvenile relies on and damages the juvenile in a way that enables disparaging choices to shape the future of that juvenile. With a conundrum of negative effects, and dilapidating situations within juvenile lives, delinquency may be a problem that can never quite be resolved. Yet, if the juvenile justice system works congruently with communities to produce techniques for justice, along with constant attention to the changing realisms of juvenile life, a successful remedy for delinquency may surely be imminent in the future of juvenile justice.
References
Bartollas, C., & Millers, S. (2008). Juvenile justice in America (fifth edition). Upper
Saddle River, NY: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Castle, M. (2010). The Safety of our youth. Ripon Forum, 44(2), Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2049603271&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Cohen, M., & Piquero, A. (2009). New evidence on the monetary value of saving a high
risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(1), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1651872701&SrchMode=1&sid=14&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277770183&clientId=74379.
Forgatch, M., Patterson, G., Degarmo, D., & Beldavs, Z. (2009). Testing the Oregon
delinquency model with 9-year follow-up of the Oregon divorce study. Development and Psychopathology, 21(2), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1671216111&SrchMode=1&sid=11&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277769914&clientId=74379.
Garcia, M., & McDowell, T. (2010). Mapping social capital: a critical contextual
approach for working with low-status families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36(1), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1959683741&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Gottfredson, D., Gerstenblith, S., Soulè, D., Womer, S., & Lu, S. (2004). Do after school
programs reduce delinquency?. Prevention Science, 5(4), Retrieved from http://www.ccjs.umd.edu/faculty/userfiles/25/GottfredsonWeismanSoule.pdf
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office, Initials. (2008). Juvenile justice and
delinquency prevention. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/about/jjdpa2002titlev.pdf.
Koffman, S., Ray, A., Berg, S., Covington, L., & Albarran, N. (2009). Impact of a
comprehensive whole child intervention and prevention program among youths at risk of gang involvement and other forms of delinquency. Children and Schools, 31(4), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1864796221&sid=4&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Piquero, A., Farrington, D., Welsh, B., Tremblay, R., & Jennings, W. (2009). Effects of
early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1893061531&SrchMode=1&sid=9&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277769306&clientId=74379.
Taylor, B., Stein, N., & Burden, F. (2010). The Effects of gender violence/harassment
prevention programming in middle schools: a randomized experimental evaluation. Violence and Victims, 25(2), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2033974271&sid=3&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Juvenile Rights During Arrest © - Jeannette Villatoro
Juvenile Rights During Arrest
The criminal justice system is in place to ensure justice and the rights of both citizens and offenders. Although this can be a difficult concept to balance, as there is much controversy between protecting the public and guaranteeing offender rights, it is necessary to implement both strategies to have a well-rounded justice system. Juveniles have certain rights at the time of arrest in addition to special rights afforded to them that differ from adult offenders.
When a juvenile is arrested, that juvenile is given the same rights as any adult offender. These rights include all of the Constitutional rights in the form of a Miranda warning (Wallace, & Roberson, 2006). Similar to adult offenders, juveniles have a right to know and understand why they are being arrested, the right to be silent, and the right to an attorney (Wallace, & Roberson, 2006). Not unlike adult offenders, a juvenile defendant should be able to make a phone call after arrest, have a right to a reasonable bond amount, and the right to be presented in court as soon as possible (Wallace, & Roberson, 2006). Moreover, an officer has the liability of explaining a juvenile’s rights in a language that is intelligible to a juvenile and must immediately notify the Attorney General of the arrest along with the juvenile’s parents or guardians (United States Attorneys’ Manual, 2010). These constituents are unique to the arrests of juveniles and not mandated for adult arrestees. Taking into consideration the vast comparison between juvenile and adult rights, juveniles in particular are afforded distinct rights that differ from adult offenders.
Juvenile offenders are indeed a special case because of their age, ability to change, and other extenuating factors. Because of this, the main objective of the juvenile court aside from the typical assertion of justice is to create an environment of rehabilitation and prevention among juvenile offenders who are indeed a special case. The purpose of juvenile justice includes educating and guiding both juveniles and their parents as well as installing a sense of responsibility among juvenile offenders (Arundel, 2010). Juveniles under the legal age of eighteen years old are subjected to special juvenile laws when being accused of or arrested for a crime (Arundel, 2010). A child that is taken into custody for a purported crime must be taken to a juvenile detention center and may be released to guardians or parents upon a promise to reappear in court and an authorization of release made by a judge (Arundel, 2010). Family plays an important role in the apprehension and sentencing of juveniles, as they are not considered adults (Bartollas, & Robinson, 2006). Family involvement can have a colossal impact on how a juvenile absorbs the consequences for his or her behavior. Unlike adult defendants, juveniles do not have a right to a jury trial but is heard by a judge during a hearing (Illinois State Bar Association, 2010). Therefore, the judge has full discretion in deciding the fate of the juvenile and can implement distinct rulings that can benefit the uniqueness of the juvenile present in court and that juvenile’s situation.
Typically juvenile defenders are indigent and not completely aware of the seriousness of their criminal behavior, as it reflects more as an expression of emotional turmoil rather than a direct desire to harm others or enact a crime. The juvenile justice system is constantly jostling to discover new and innovative ways of practicing juvenile justice while guaranteeing juvenile rights. Because juvenile crime is reaching a high point in society, it is apparent that the juvenile justice system is in peril (Eckenbrecht, 1996). Furthermore, rights are seemingly violated because of the misinformation of the special protections juveniles should have. According to Eckenbrecht, “novice lawyers and judges and inadequate funds have jeopardized the juvenile rights system” (Eckenbrecht, 1996, p.1). A report by the American Bar Association shows an alarming trend of juvenile offenders facing a lack of justice and rights (Eckenbrecht, 1996). Although it is clear that these exceptional rights are necessary because of the fragile nature of most juveniles facing the justice system, it is also evident that an overhaul of the workings of the justice system needs to be in place.
The unique attention to juvenile matters is essential in the justice system to prevent further crime and rehabilitate youths. Because young people are prone to influence and are considered products of their environment, it is imperative to incorporate this knowledge into the handling of juvenile offenders. The key is to have a strict ideal of resolution among juveniles to eradicate the contagion of criminal behavior that seems to plague society. There is a short amount of time that a juvenile can be given proper support before that juvenile reaches adulthood, and juvenility is a crucial time to guide youthful offenders and their families toward the right path of non-violent, non-criminal lives.
References
Arundel, A. (2010). Arrest and custody of juveniles. Retrieved from
http://www.aacounty.org/Police/RulesRegs/Sections17-19/1702JuvArrestCust.pdf.
Bartollas, C., & Miller, S. (2008). Juvenile justice in America (fifth edition). Upper
Saddle River, NY: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Eckenbrecht, M. (1996). Juvenile rights in peril. ABA Journal, 82(1), Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=9378563&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Illinois State Bar Association (2010). Rights of juveniles who are arrested.
Retrieved from http://www.lsba.org/2007MembershipDirectory/TelLawDocuments/tape_6077.pdf.
United States Attorneys’ Manual (2010). Arrest of a juvenile. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00043.htm.
Wallace, H., & Roberson, C. (2006). Principles of criminal law (third edition). New
York, NY: Pearson.
The criminal justice system is in place to ensure justice and the rights of both citizens and offenders. Although this can be a difficult concept to balance, as there is much controversy between protecting the public and guaranteeing offender rights, it is necessary to implement both strategies to have a well-rounded justice system. Juveniles have certain rights at the time of arrest in addition to special rights afforded to them that differ from adult offenders.
When a juvenile is arrested, that juvenile is given the same rights as any adult offender. These rights include all of the Constitutional rights in the form of a Miranda warning (Wallace, & Roberson, 2006). Similar to adult offenders, juveniles have a right to know and understand why they are being arrested, the right to be silent, and the right to an attorney (Wallace, & Roberson, 2006). Not unlike adult offenders, a juvenile defendant should be able to make a phone call after arrest, have a right to a reasonable bond amount, and the right to be presented in court as soon as possible (Wallace, & Roberson, 2006). Moreover, an officer has the liability of explaining a juvenile’s rights in a language that is intelligible to a juvenile and must immediately notify the Attorney General of the arrest along with the juvenile’s parents or guardians (United States Attorneys’ Manual, 2010). These constituents are unique to the arrests of juveniles and not mandated for adult arrestees. Taking into consideration the vast comparison between juvenile and adult rights, juveniles in particular are afforded distinct rights that differ from adult offenders.
Juvenile offenders are indeed a special case because of their age, ability to change, and other extenuating factors. Because of this, the main objective of the juvenile court aside from the typical assertion of justice is to create an environment of rehabilitation and prevention among juvenile offenders who are indeed a special case. The purpose of juvenile justice includes educating and guiding both juveniles and their parents as well as installing a sense of responsibility among juvenile offenders (Arundel, 2010). Juveniles under the legal age of eighteen years old are subjected to special juvenile laws when being accused of or arrested for a crime (Arundel, 2010). A child that is taken into custody for a purported crime must be taken to a juvenile detention center and may be released to guardians or parents upon a promise to reappear in court and an authorization of release made by a judge (Arundel, 2010). Family plays an important role in the apprehension and sentencing of juveniles, as they are not considered adults (Bartollas, & Robinson, 2006). Family involvement can have a colossal impact on how a juvenile absorbs the consequences for his or her behavior. Unlike adult defendants, juveniles do not have a right to a jury trial but is heard by a judge during a hearing (Illinois State Bar Association, 2010). Therefore, the judge has full discretion in deciding the fate of the juvenile and can implement distinct rulings that can benefit the uniqueness of the juvenile present in court and that juvenile’s situation.
Typically juvenile defenders are indigent and not completely aware of the seriousness of their criminal behavior, as it reflects more as an expression of emotional turmoil rather than a direct desire to harm others or enact a crime. The juvenile justice system is constantly jostling to discover new and innovative ways of practicing juvenile justice while guaranteeing juvenile rights. Because juvenile crime is reaching a high point in society, it is apparent that the juvenile justice system is in peril (Eckenbrecht, 1996). Furthermore, rights are seemingly violated because of the misinformation of the special protections juveniles should have. According to Eckenbrecht, “novice lawyers and judges and inadequate funds have jeopardized the juvenile rights system” (Eckenbrecht, 1996, p.1). A report by the American Bar Association shows an alarming trend of juvenile offenders facing a lack of justice and rights (Eckenbrecht, 1996). Although it is clear that these exceptional rights are necessary because of the fragile nature of most juveniles facing the justice system, it is also evident that an overhaul of the workings of the justice system needs to be in place.
The unique attention to juvenile matters is essential in the justice system to prevent further crime and rehabilitate youths. Because young people are prone to influence and are considered products of their environment, it is imperative to incorporate this knowledge into the handling of juvenile offenders. The key is to have a strict ideal of resolution among juveniles to eradicate the contagion of criminal behavior that seems to plague society. There is a short amount of time that a juvenile can be given proper support before that juvenile reaches adulthood, and juvenility is a crucial time to guide youthful offenders and their families toward the right path of non-violent, non-criminal lives.
References
Arundel, A. (2010). Arrest and custody of juveniles. Retrieved from
http://www.aacounty.org/Police/RulesRegs/Sections17-19/1702JuvArrestCust.pdf.
Bartollas, C., & Miller, S. (2008). Juvenile justice in America (fifth edition). Upper
Saddle River, NY: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Eckenbrecht, M. (1996). Juvenile rights in peril. ABA Journal, 82(1), Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=9378563&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Illinois State Bar Association (2010). Rights of juveniles who are arrested.
Retrieved from http://www.lsba.org/2007MembershipDirectory/TelLawDocuments/tape_6077.pdf.
United States Attorneys’ Manual (2010). Arrest of a juvenile. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00043.htm.
Wallace, H., & Roberson, C. (2006). Principles of criminal law (third edition). New
York, NY: Pearson.
Monday, May 24, 2010
The Purposes of Criminal Law
Criminal law is the crux of the American justice system. There are many facets within the workings of criminal law that are in place to secure the freedoms and rights of individuals while preventing and punishing crimes for the promotion of safety. Through deterrence, punishment, and retribution, criminal law imposes an imperfect yet impartial system of apprehension and advocation of civility.
Deterrence
One of the main focuses of criminal law is that of deterring crime. The criminal justice system must concentrate on discouraging crime because it is the most adequate way of ensuring the safety of citizens and having less criminal activity corrupting the coveted ideal of justice. This aspect of prevention relies heavily on two methods of deterrence. Specific deterrence deals directly with the offender and elicits sentencing and strict punishment that fits the crime and has the purpose of dissuading any further criminal acts from the apprehended individual. Corporal punishment and mandatory arrests have been put into practice to support specific deterrence (Keel, 2005). General determent, however, is based on preventing crimes from future offenders. Truth in sentencing, “three strikes” law, and revocation of parole are examples of general deterrence procedural law (Keel, 2005). General determent is strongly connected to specific determent, as it entails prevention of crime and utilizes punishment to directly inhibit or reduce the possibility of future crimes.
Punishment
The United States has a colorful and quite disturbing history of punishment. Retaliation was a key factor around 200 years ago and apprehended criminals were chastised severely, usually causing death of the criminal regardless of the seriousness of the crime (Schmalleger, 2009). More humane methods of punishment are now put into practice although there is rigorousness to the punishments imposed on criminal offenders. This proposes a unique balance of individual rights and sustained consequences for criminal activity. By ensuring harsh punishment of crimes, the justice system sends a message of low tolerance for certain behaviors. Society more readily welcomes the justice system employing just deserts that put forth a policy of punishing criminals justly for the crimes that are committed (Holroyd, 2010).
Retribution
The criminal justice system recognizes the strong need for retribution when convicting criminals. Society holds a firm grasp on the model of just deserts in which proposes a criminal is responsible for the crime that is committed (Schmalleger, 2009). Closely related to punishment, retribution is a component of criminal law that is highly recognized as important because citizens are more increasingly concerned with criminals paying for their crimes not just for the offense but also for the victimization that occurs as a result. Retribution has to do with the acting of revenge on a criminal as to embody the integrity of victims. Sentencing must not only deter crime or punish the criminal, but also give a sense of reprisal to victims and citizens. Incapacitation is a reality of retributive actions imposed by the court. A convicted offender may serve a lengthy prison term that can extend the normal life expectancy of a human being (Holroyd, 2010). Even more severe is the death sentence, which ensures the offender pays the ultimate price for his or her crime. Retribution is a difficult imposition as sentencing for more serious crimes including murder and rape cannot provide a fair justice for the victims involved. Despite ethical quandaries that are evident, retributive measures clearly adhere to the notion that the criminal justice system must devise a form of apprehension and punishment that provides sufficient retribution to society (Miller, 2009).
The criminal justice system consists of many aspects that are intricately woven into a strong barrier against crime. In order to enact the proper punishment of crimes, retribution must be a consideration no matter how slight. Overall, deterring crime is the central focus of criminal law, as prevention would clearly eradicate crime and any punishment or retribution that crime would most certainly produce.
References
Holroyd, J. (2010). Punishment and Justice. Social Theory and Practice, 36(1), 78-111.
Retrieved May 14, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1964732971).
Keel, R. (2005). Rational choice and determent. Retrieved from
http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/ratchoc.html.
Miller, S. (2009). Retribution, Rehabilitation, and the Rights of Prisoners. Criminal
Justice Ethics, 28(2), 238-253. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1902630091).
Schmalleger, F. (2009). Criminal justice today: an introductory text for the 21st century
(tenth edition). Upper Saddle River, NY: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Deterrence
One of the main focuses of criminal law is that of deterring crime. The criminal justice system must concentrate on discouraging crime because it is the most adequate way of ensuring the safety of citizens and having less criminal activity corrupting the coveted ideal of justice. This aspect of prevention relies heavily on two methods of deterrence. Specific deterrence deals directly with the offender and elicits sentencing and strict punishment that fits the crime and has the purpose of dissuading any further criminal acts from the apprehended individual. Corporal punishment and mandatory arrests have been put into practice to support specific deterrence (Keel, 2005). General determent, however, is based on preventing crimes from future offenders. Truth in sentencing, “three strikes” law, and revocation of parole are examples of general deterrence procedural law (Keel, 2005). General determent is strongly connected to specific determent, as it entails prevention of crime and utilizes punishment to directly inhibit or reduce the possibility of future crimes.
Punishment
The United States has a colorful and quite disturbing history of punishment. Retaliation was a key factor around 200 years ago and apprehended criminals were chastised severely, usually causing death of the criminal regardless of the seriousness of the crime (Schmalleger, 2009). More humane methods of punishment are now put into practice although there is rigorousness to the punishments imposed on criminal offenders. This proposes a unique balance of individual rights and sustained consequences for criminal activity. By ensuring harsh punishment of crimes, the justice system sends a message of low tolerance for certain behaviors. Society more readily welcomes the justice system employing just deserts that put forth a policy of punishing criminals justly for the crimes that are committed (Holroyd, 2010).
Retribution
The criminal justice system recognizes the strong need for retribution when convicting criminals. Society holds a firm grasp on the model of just deserts in which proposes a criminal is responsible for the crime that is committed (Schmalleger, 2009). Closely related to punishment, retribution is a component of criminal law that is highly recognized as important because citizens are more increasingly concerned with criminals paying for their crimes not just for the offense but also for the victimization that occurs as a result. Retribution has to do with the acting of revenge on a criminal as to embody the integrity of victims. Sentencing must not only deter crime or punish the criminal, but also give a sense of reprisal to victims and citizens. Incapacitation is a reality of retributive actions imposed by the court. A convicted offender may serve a lengthy prison term that can extend the normal life expectancy of a human being (Holroyd, 2010). Even more severe is the death sentence, which ensures the offender pays the ultimate price for his or her crime. Retribution is a difficult imposition as sentencing for more serious crimes including murder and rape cannot provide a fair justice for the victims involved. Despite ethical quandaries that are evident, retributive measures clearly adhere to the notion that the criminal justice system must devise a form of apprehension and punishment that provides sufficient retribution to society (Miller, 2009).
The criminal justice system consists of many aspects that are intricately woven into a strong barrier against crime. In order to enact the proper punishment of crimes, retribution must be a consideration no matter how slight. Overall, deterring crime is the central focus of criminal law, as prevention would clearly eradicate crime and any punishment or retribution that crime would most certainly produce.
References
Holroyd, J. (2010). Punishment and Justice. Social Theory and Practice, 36(1), 78-111.
Retrieved May 14, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1964732971).
Keel, R. (2005). Rational choice and determent. Retrieved from
http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/ratchoc.html.
Miller, S. (2009). Retribution, Rehabilitation, and the Rights of Prisoners. Criminal
Justice Ethics, 28(2), 238-253. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1902630091).
Schmalleger, F. (2009). Criminal justice today: an introductory text for the 21st century
(tenth edition). Upper Saddle River, NY: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The Negative Effects of Stereotyping - a Rhetorical Essay ©
Stereotypes are rampant in our culture and have been a dilapidating issue in our civilization for a long while. The use of stereotypes to judge another human being can cause serious detriment to the success and happiness of others. Understanding what stereotypes are and how they came about is important to eradicate the use of stereotypes and be able to assess a person’s worth based on their own individual traits. Some of the most common stereotypes are among politicians, tattooed persons, feminists, and senior citizens. I will uncover the stereotypes associated with these groups, how the stereotypes are used and why, and how stereotyping most definitely leaves a negative effect.
Stereotyped Groups
There is a vast majority of people that are stereotyped. When a stereotype is implemented, it groups individuals into a certain category (Moore, Parker, 2004). This poses a difficult standard because most people can fit into several categories based on different factors such as religion, race, sex, and personality traits among other features. When someone chooses to group people and give that group a description, they are opting to provoke “a thought or image about a group of people based on little or no evidence” (Moore, Parker, 2004, p. 130).
Political cues and stereotypes are key elements in the political spectrum that undoubtedly propel a certain gage in voter’s decisions (Johnston, 1981). Politicians have always had a general stereotype of being dishonest. The term “crooked politician” is a common one, and is seemingly used on a regular basis. Although there are mendacious politicians, it is unfair to ascertain that all or most of politicians have this characteristic. If a politician believes in a different ideal than a citizen, or if that politician simply belongs to the opposing political party, it is unfortunate that he or she may very well be coined as a dishonest politician. This is a form of mockery and slander. It is the more appropriate form of judgment to assess the unique traits and beliefs of that individual politician rather than putting them into a class of untrustworthy representatives by default.
Another stereotype falls into the lap of tattooed persons. Those with tattoos have a stereotype of being tough, scary, and delinquent. One study perpetuated results that children connect a strong negative assumption about tattoos (Durkin, Houghton, 2000). Similarly, in this study it was also purported that young people who initiate interest in getting tattoos are aware of the stigma of criminality attached to those with tattoos or body art (Durkin, Houghton, 2000). Many people who choose to cover their bodies with tattoos do so with a creative edge and it does not represent any delinquency per se. However, it is obvious that many criminals and gangs have tattoos as standards, and this realization seems to bleed into the mainstream population of those with tattoos. It is unfortunate that society deems those with tattoos as estranged wrongdoers as it certainly impinges on the ability to gain employment or be generally respected and greeted appropriately by others.
Feminists have long been looked upon as abrasive activists. Feminism started out this way in the 1960s in order to appease the needs of women and obtain rights. Some feminists have been extreme with their attitudes and choices of activism, but it does not necessarily represent the entire feminist population. Many feminists are not radicals but are mild heroines of women’s rights. Although some women have positive views of feminism as it related to fighting sexism and sexual oppression, only 12% of 200 college women in one particular study readily identified themselves in a feminist group (Roy, Weibust, Miller, 2007). This shows that feminism still has a negative connotation and most are scared to endorse feminism despite some of the positive aspects it entails.
One last stereotype that seems highly unfortunate is that of senior citizens. Most people have the view that elderly people are slow and dumb. This comes from some facts pertaining to old age that include deterioration of the mind and body. However, it is very clear that many senior citizens have active lifestyles and are healthy and happy. Furthermore, the aspect of this stereotype that is most regrettable is that unlike the other groups that were discussed such as politicians, feminists, and tattooed persons, being elderly is not a choice; everyone comes to that stage in life. Therefore, perhaps the stereotypes forced upon senior citizens are by far the most pertinent examples of a lack of philanthropy and signify how stereotypes are harmful, outrageous slanters that lack conviction and critical thinking.
The Truth Behind Stereotypes
Stereotypes were developed on assumptions without any evidence. However, most stereotypes come alive with part truths that permeate the surface. There are relevant facts that pertain to stereotypes that have been witnessed within a particular group. This is possibly the most crucial aspect of stereotyping. Because of this, most people engage in stereotypes without recourse because they believe that they are expressing truth. After all, some politicians are dishonest while some tattooed people are definitely unlawful. And most people can see that feminists are usually radicals while senior citizens are most surely slow and lack wit. However, it is not viable to put all individuals who share those labels into one group because there are most certainly many people that can be in those categories who invoke a ration of the unexpected. That is why truth should not be used as a scapegoat when applying stereotypes, because truth is whole and encompassing. Stereotypes clearly only deal with some and not the entire portion, therefore there is no truth to stereotypes.
The Effects of Stereotyping
The effects of stereotyping can be devastating. Stereotypes begin with a spark and end with a consuming fire. Hardly any person on this earth can escape the dagger of stereotypes. Many people may be fearful of showing aspects of themselves because of the stereotyping that may ensue. Persons whom are connected to a certain stereotyped group are looked upon in negative ways that promote tension and hatred. Children learn these stereotypes and apply them carelessly without any knowledge of how to correctly assess a person’s values. Consequently, an attempt to exterminate the use of stereotypes should be in place. Stereotyping can be taught in schools with exercises that show the negative impact that stereotypes inflict. People should actively train themselves to fend off stereotypical assumptions as to live more freely and accept others more willingly.
Application of Resistance to Stereotypes
I have personally learned that stereotypes are predominantly negative. Even those stereotypes that seemingly show positive attributes, such as the assumption that Asians are smart, are still damaging with their application. The underlying fact is that stereotypes cannot be utilized if progression is to take place. Stereotyping is clearly a fallacy in judgment, and fallacies are errors in thinking (Moore, Parker, 2004). It is a delicate subject to judge others, and if one decides to do so, they must take many aspects of that person into consideration. Even negative qualities of people are not reflections of their entire character, and those negative qualities may be shared with others in the group, but that does not constitute a general ideal of the group itself.
Stereotypes are common more often than not. They are unfortunate assumptions that lead to hardships and misjudgments. When a person is grouped into a category based on their candidacy for politics, their tattoos, their actions or beliefs toward women, or even their age, negative occurrences most definitely take place. One cannot flourish in society when they are burdened with fictitious allegations of who they are. This only perpetuates a lack of personal expression and a confusion of how one can safely present themselves. With techniques to battle the use of stereotypes, we can surely negate issues of stereotyping and allow a more positive and accepting society to abound.
References
Durkin, K., & Houghton, S. (2000). Children’s and adolescents’ stereotypes of tattooed
people as delinquent. British Psychological Society, 5(2), Retrieved from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/lcp/2000/00000005/00000002/art00002.
Johnston, P. (1981). Political views and the perception of candidates. American Politics
Research, 9(4), Retrieved from http://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/4/427. DOI: 10.1177/1532673X8100900403.
Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2004). Critical thinking (seventh edition). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Companies.
Roy, R., Weibust, K., & Miller, C. (2007). Effects of stereotypes about feminists on
feminist self-identification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31. Retrieved from http://brownrecluse.uvm.edu/~psych/programs/graduate/gen_exp/social/papers/feminist_self-id.pdf. DOI: 0361-6843/07.
by Jeannette Villatoro
Stereotyped Groups
There is a vast majority of people that are stereotyped. When a stereotype is implemented, it groups individuals into a certain category (Moore, Parker, 2004). This poses a difficult standard because most people can fit into several categories based on different factors such as religion, race, sex, and personality traits among other features. When someone chooses to group people and give that group a description, they are opting to provoke “a thought or image about a group of people based on little or no evidence” (Moore, Parker, 2004, p. 130).
Political cues and stereotypes are key elements in the political spectrum that undoubtedly propel a certain gage in voter’s decisions (Johnston, 1981). Politicians have always had a general stereotype of being dishonest. The term “crooked politician” is a common one, and is seemingly used on a regular basis. Although there are mendacious politicians, it is unfair to ascertain that all or most of politicians have this characteristic. If a politician believes in a different ideal than a citizen, or if that politician simply belongs to the opposing political party, it is unfortunate that he or she may very well be coined as a dishonest politician. This is a form of mockery and slander. It is the more appropriate form of judgment to assess the unique traits and beliefs of that individual politician rather than putting them into a class of untrustworthy representatives by default.
Another stereotype falls into the lap of tattooed persons. Those with tattoos have a stereotype of being tough, scary, and delinquent. One study perpetuated results that children connect a strong negative assumption about tattoos (Durkin, Houghton, 2000). Similarly, in this study it was also purported that young people who initiate interest in getting tattoos are aware of the stigma of criminality attached to those with tattoos or body art (Durkin, Houghton, 2000). Many people who choose to cover their bodies with tattoos do so with a creative edge and it does not represent any delinquency per se. However, it is obvious that many criminals and gangs have tattoos as standards, and this realization seems to bleed into the mainstream population of those with tattoos. It is unfortunate that society deems those with tattoos as estranged wrongdoers as it certainly impinges on the ability to gain employment or be generally respected and greeted appropriately by others.
Feminists have long been looked upon as abrasive activists. Feminism started out this way in the 1960s in order to appease the needs of women and obtain rights. Some feminists have been extreme with their attitudes and choices of activism, but it does not necessarily represent the entire feminist population. Many feminists are not radicals but are mild heroines of women’s rights. Although some women have positive views of feminism as it related to fighting sexism and sexual oppression, only 12% of 200 college women in one particular study readily identified themselves in a feminist group (Roy, Weibust, Miller, 2007). This shows that feminism still has a negative connotation and most are scared to endorse feminism despite some of the positive aspects it entails.
One last stereotype that seems highly unfortunate is that of senior citizens. Most people have the view that elderly people are slow and dumb. This comes from some facts pertaining to old age that include deterioration of the mind and body. However, it is very clear that many senior citizens have active lifestyles and are healthy and happy. Furthermore, the aspect of this stereotype that is most regrettable is that unlike the other groups that were discussed such as politicians, feminists, and tattooed persons, being elderly is not a choice; everyone comes to that stage in life. Therefore, perhaps the stereotypes forced upon senior citizens are by far the most pertinent examples of a lack of philanthropy and signify how stereotypes are harmful, outrageous slanters that lack conviction and critical thinking.
The Truth Behind Stereotypes
Stereotypes were developed on assumptions without any evidence. However, most stereotypes come alive with part truths that permeate the surface. There are relevant facts that pertain to stereotypes that have been witnessed within a particular group. This is possibly the most crucial aspect of stereotyping. Because of this, most people engage in stereotypes without recourse because they believe that they are expressing truth. After all, some politicians are dishonest while some tattooed people are definitely unlawful. And most people can see that feminists are usually radicals while senior citizens are most surely slow and lack wit. However, it is not viable to put all individuals who share those labels into one group because there are most certainly many people that can be in those categories who invoke a ration of the unexpected. That is why truth should not be used as a scapegoat when applying stereotypes, because truth is whole and encompassing. Stereotypes clearly only deal with some and not the entire portion, therefore there is no truth to stereotypes.
The Effects of Stereotyping
The effects of stereotyping can be devastating. Stereotypes begin with a spark and end with a consuming fire. Hardly any person on this earth can escape the dagger of stereotypes. Many people may be fearful of showing aspects of themselves because of the stereotyping that may ensue. Persons whom are connected to a certain stereotyped group are looked upon in negative ways that promote tension and hatred. Children learn these stereotypes and apply them carelessly without any knowledge of how to correctly assess a person’s values. Consequently, an attempt to exterminate the use of stereotypes should be in place. Stereotyping can be taught in schools with exercises that show the negative impact that stereotypes inflict. People should actively train themselves to fend off stereotypical assumptions as to live more freely and accept others more willingly.
Application of Resistance to Stereotypes
I have personally learned that stereotypes are predominantly negative. Even those stereotypes that seemingly show positive attributes, such as the assumption that Asians are smart, are still damaging with their application. The underlying fact is that stereotypes cannot be utilized if progression is to take place. Stereotyping is clearly a fallacy in judgment, and fallacies are errors in thinking (Moore, Parker, 2004). It is a delicate subject to judge others, and if one decides to do so, they must take many aspects of that person into consideration. Even negative qualities of people are not reflections of their entire character, and those negative qualities may be shared with others in the group, but that does not constitute a general ideal of the group itself.
Stereotypes are common more often than not. They are unfortunate assumptions that lead to hardships and misjudgments. When a person is grouped into a category based on their candidacy for politics, their tattoos, their actions or beliefs toward women, or even their age, negative occurrences most definitely take place. One cannot flourish in society when they are burdened with fictitious allegations of who they are. This only perpetuates a lack of personal expression and a confusion of how one can safely present themselves. With techniques to battle the use of stereotypes, we can surely negate issues of stereotyping and allow a more positive and accepting society to abound.
References
Durkin, K., & Houghton, S. (2000). Children’s and adolescents’ stereotypes of tattooed
people as delinquent. British Psychological Society, 5(2), Retrieved from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/lcp/2000/00000005/00000002/art00002.
Johnston, P. (1981). Political views and the perception of candidates. American Politics
Research, 9(4), Retrieved from http://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/4/427. DOI: 10.1177/1532673X8100900403.
Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2004). Critical thinking (seventh edition). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Companies.
Roy, R., Weibust, K., & Miller, C. (2007). Effects of stereotypes about feminists on
feminist self-identification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31. Retrieved from http://brownrecluse.uvm.edu/~psych/programs/graduate/gen_exp/social/papers/feminist_self-id.pdf. DOI: 0361-6843/07.
by Jeannette Villatoro
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Tick Tock ©
I hear the subtle horns of the night's bregade.
The tick tock of the invisible clock.
Oh woe as me with a worrisome heart.
These fretful thoughts that do invade...
I leave the windows open to let in the breeze.
How it tumbles and toils with a menacing speed.
I hear breaking glass however so faint.
It's only my mind so destructive and quaint.
Why oh why must disaster be bred in this worrisome heart and restless head.
By Jeannette Villatoro ©
The tick tock of the invisible clock.
Oh woe as me with a worrisome heart.
These fretful thoughts that do invade...
I leave the windows open to let in the breeze.
How it tumbles and toils with a menacing speed.
I hear breaking glass however so faint.
It's only my mind so destructive and quaint.
Why oh why must disaster be bred in this worrisome heart and restless head.
By Jeannette Villatoro ©
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Narcissism in the Maladaptive World ©
Narcissism in the Maladaptive World
JEANNETTE VILLATORO
Abnormal psychology is a realm of psychological study that dares to define maladaptive behavior and discover the causal effects of less than normal attributes in terms of human conduct. Abnormal psychology envelops many inflictions from depression to serious psychological disorders. Among these psychological abnormalities are personality disorders in which prove to be cumbersome for people in regards to adapting well with their environment. Narcissism is one such personality disorder that can be very dilapidating to an individual. This author will attempt to delve into the definition of narcissism, explore some of its causes and effects and how it relates to society, and measure the possibility of success in terms of psychological treatment for this disorder.
Narcissism Defined
It is imperative for people to positively interact in a social setting. Human beings require social interaction and crave compatibility with others. These are significant aspects of human nature that narcissism defies. Those diagnosed with narcissism lack the desire to interact and expects only acknowledgment of their own presence. Moreover, they deliberately concentrate on the importance and impact of their existence rather relying on constructive interface with other people. Therefore, narcissism is a staid disorder in which a huge deficit in social contexts and a concentration on self prevents healthy and successful living.
The word narcissism comes from a character in a tale by Ovid in which a proud, handsome son of a god and nymph named Narcissus rejects the love of another who then puts a spell on him that entices him to fall in love with his own reflection in a pond. Narcissus continually admires his reflection, but perils and dies because it is inaccessible (Straker, D., 2009).
Narcissism falls into the dominion of personality disorders that involve “dramatic, emotional, or erratic behavior” (Sarason, I., Sarason, B., 2002, p. 301). A person diagnosed with narcissist personality will portray many self-serving traits. This ostentatious person is focused mainly on their self, has little or no regard for others, and will easily cause harm to others without any thought. This person thrives on attention and believes they have elevated self-importance (Sarason, I., Sarason, B., 2002). Common observation leads to a notion that those with narcissism have higher self-esteem, which in turn leads to aggression. “This theory is evidenced by nationalistic imperialism, master race ideologies, aristocratic dueling, playground bullies, and street gang rhetoric” (Bushman, B., Baumeister, R., 1998, p. 1).
Narcissism has been a fascinating issue in psychology since the history of time. Psychoanalytical upheaval of this disorder can indeed be traced back to earlier historical times, in which many psychologists and scientists worked tirelessly on narcissism. One of the most prominent psychologists that dared to elicit answers and define this disorder was Sigmund Freud. The attempt to grasp the disorder and its many complexities continue with psychology today.
According to current psychological consideration of this disorder, there are two types of narcissistic behavior that is categorized in psychological study. Primary narcissism is said to be the main type of narcissism in which develops in infanthood. Young babies must be self-focused in order to preserve and protect their life and gain attention from parents during the development of self (Straker, D., 2009) Secondary narcissism is evident in “older children and adults seek personal gratification over the achievement of social goals and conformance to social values” (Straker, D., 2009, p. 1).
With the extreme connotations of this disorder, and the adverse effects it has on individuals and society, narcissism infects many. However, even with its serious inference, it is also a commonality among most people. Human beings are born with a distinct of amount narcissism as a survival tool. Children have similar focus on their own well being as they grow and remain the center of attention in families. It is when an individual displays severe disregard for others and will deliberately impair the comfort of others in order to continue a self-serving motive that narcissim takes a form of dangerous proportions and can be identified as a personality dysfunction. The true challenge is to identify the line between normal self-functioning and the onset of narcissism as a personality disorder.
Narcissism is a dangerous affliction. Most personality disorders have the common factor of affecting the afflicted individual greatly. Ease of living and quality of life are highly troubled by personality disorders. A person’s way of handling problems and adversity are limited to a set way of thinking and behaving, which inhibits true success in life (Sarason, I., Sarason, B., 2002). Narcissism is unique, however, due to its blatant affect on other people. One with narcissism causes trauma to others, deliberately manipulates or hurts another person to gain individual satisfaction, and can greatly cause turmoil to loved ones and family members. Because of these distinct factors of this personality disorder, narcissism is a serious burden with little hope of reversal and a dramatic implication on the rest of society.
Cause and Effect
The causes of narcissism are difficult at best to uncover in a general standpoint. It is evident that this disorder accumulates often in early adulthood (Sarason, I., Sarason, B., 2002). Because each individual is different and life situations are fluctuated among each person, it is hard to discover any supposed caused of this disorder. Psychological differences are copious among each person as well. What psychology has proven coherently through study is that environmental and psychological influences are usually forces that work hand-in-hand. Therefore, trying to unearth specific attributes to a certain disorder can be trying at the least.
The psychobiology is thought to be a major cause of narcissism. How the brain functions in connection with behavior can lead to many narcissistic tendencies. A negative childhood or a childhood filled with excessive attention and indulgence hoisted upon the child are also said to have a major effect on this disorder. Abuse and neglect are also predisposed conditions that may lead to narcissism as well as many other disorders (Crown, S., Freeman, H., 1994).
The diagnosis of narcissism is quite easier to discern than causal instigations of the disorder. Symptoms of narcissism include lack of feeling for others, a willingness to take advantage of others, exaggerated belief in self-ability, a heightened sense of self-importance, focus on wealth and power, a demand for special attention without particular cause, and a stipulation of being admired by others (Sarason, I., Sarason, B., 2002). Though many human beings have some minuscule specimens of these particular symptoms that can be manifested in everyday life, it is particularly of concern when these symptoms are extreme and are displayed in unison that narcissism is a possibility. With the observation of narcissistic symptoms, there are ways for psychologists to determine the severity of the disorder and the many factors that play a role in the overall magnitude of narcissism within an individual.
Narcissism is a grim disorder yet the idiom is used commonly when describing someone with a seemingly inflated ego. Although varying degrees of narcissism is possible, with some phases proving less severe than others, it is important to diagnose the disorder officially. This can be done lucratively using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) in psychology. This provides the possibility for a psychologist or clinician to diagnose certain disorders using a multiaxial assessment system (Sarason, I., Sarason, B., 2002). The Axis diagnostic model is the best tool for capturing and categorizing narcissism, which is compartmentalized as an Axis II disorder. Within this diagnostic instrument, psychologists can determine certain characteristics and models of behavior that calculate a true disorder.
Within the Axis model, there are separate categories of diagnosis that help define a disorder, its properties, and any other physical or mental contributions to the said disorder. Axis I will detect clinical disorders. If a clinical health diagnosis is absent, V71.09 will be placed within the first Axis (Sarason, I., Sarason, B., 2002). Axis II is for mental retardation and personality disorders. Axis III will illustrate medical conditions, while Axis IV will represent psychosocial and environmental factors. Axis V will give a professional a synopsis and overall view of the complete disorder that a patient suffers from (Sarason, I., Sarason, B., 2002). If a patient came in to a psychologist’s office with several symptoms, the Axis would be used to connect all abnormalities and determine a diagnosis. For example, if the patient was found to have an episode of major depressive disorder and drug abuse, it would be concluded within Axis I. Narcissism would be in Axis II, and infection of the nose and throat with open wounds on abdomen would belong in Axis III. If the patient has been unemployed for several months, has a promiscuous lifestyle, and also has a poor relationship with siblings, this would fit in Axis IV. The final diagnosis would be exhibited in Axis V and would include a GAF score to establish the rigorous nature of the total disorder.
Self-aggrandizing behavior is common in society today and may even be accepted in some forms. We see narcissism in overly deserving financial choices that Americans make on an everyday basis, and we notice self-serving behaviors among individuals working to get ahead in life. Yet, it is a term used loosely to create an insult to someone with high self-esteem or general interest in his or her own well-being. Narcissism as a disorder runs much deeper than this, and the causes are among a great psychological struggle to uncover. The effects of narcissism, however, are much less difficult to penetrate and realize, as narcissism effects many and can lead to aggression and even violent behavior.
The connotation that low self-esteem causes aggressive behavior is well on its way to extinction. There is little proof to back that scenario, and furthermore, it is evident that those with aggressive propensities oftentimes display unusually amounts of high self-esteem or regard for one’s own self (Bushman, B., Baumeister, R., 1998). Once a person with narcissistic behavior feels that their self-esteem or self-efficacy is threatened, that person has a good chance of lashing out on others. Furthermore, the act of gaining satisfaction from hurting or manipulating others tends to branch new and dangerous territory for society. Narcissism is unlike many disorders because of the ability to effect others. Many psychological disorders cause harm, but usually the person distressed with the disorder is the one who is internally disturbed and tortured by the affliction.
Another seemingly consequential effect of narcissism is that the person with this disorder has less chance of rehabilitation as the disorder progresses. Regard for one’s self grows to immense proportions, and the importance of maintaining the heightened ego becomes a necessity. The deliberate burden that is pushed on others to uphold a narcissistic personality is quite bothersome. If a narcissist loses his or her viewed abilities and entitlement, danger may ensue involving violent behavior. The worse fear of a narcissist is that they become less significant in the world. Therefore, the narcissism grows continually and becomes a reality that is not easily shaken, regardless of substantial treatment measures that are applied.
In addition to the harm this disorder causes within society and one’s self, this disorder also affects the afflicted person in many other ways. Adjusting to society is nearly impossible as the disorder grows. A person with narcissism cannot communicate or fit in with others. Working or gaining meaningful relationships are tasks that are beyond capability for a narcissist (Crown, S., Freeman, H., 1994). The patient will fall into a small world created only of their own wills and desires that are nearly impossible to control, creating mass distention of the disorder. In an accurate and compelling description of narcissism and the trials of this disorder, one source explains the intent of a narcissist and the effects of the disorder, “narcissism is characterized by feelings of superiority over other people, and so simple disregard for the rights and feelings of others could result in higher aggression, even in the absence of threat. It is also plausible that narcissists perceive social life as a series of struggles for dominance, and so they may attack others regardless of direct threat, simply as a means of establishing themselves in a superior position by conquering or intimidating other individuals” (Bushman, B., Baumeister, R., 1998, p. 3).
Treatment and Successful Dissuading
Treating narcissism disorder entails much complexity. One who is living with the distorted reality of narcissism may have grown to obtain it throughout childhood with finally gaining momentum in early adulthood. Someone with this disorder may be very comfortable with his or her ideal ways of thinking and behaving, making successful finality of treatment almost impossible. There is very little hope that treatment will cure this disorder, as narcissism involves a strong sense of being and a guarded way of thinking. Nonetheless, treatment is available within the psychological spectrum. In order to treat someone for narcissism, the particular candidacies must be unearthed that seemingly may have caused narcissism within this individual. A malignant narcissist may defy any change in behavior and will especially disagree with any prognosis made by anther human being. If the narcissist has had success in life with the way they have lived, it may be even more difficult to pry them away from their way of behaving. It is a narrow path to walk in treating narcissism, but there are many techniques in which promote rays of minimal hope in decreasing this steadily dangerous personality disorder.
Despite a grandiose sense of self, and a likely chance to resist treatment, some narcissists are not necessarily happy with their condition and internally seek help to change. In these cases, treatment is possible and worthy of attempt. Another reason for a narcissist to seek treatment is if they feel that their reality has been threatened by accomplishments by others, and their self-image has been somewhat damaged. The desire would be to have their self-importance validated and restored. The most common treatment that is implemented with narcissism is through psychotherapy either individually or in a group setting. A narcissist may experience other symptoms that affect the disorder in which antidepressants and medications may be prescribed.
Narcissism is almost regarded as a mystery in psychology. This self-serving disorder inhibits truly successful functioning in society as well as being a major detriment to others. It has been studies throughout history and has yet to find a sustainable causal relationship with environmental or biological factors. The DSM-IV assessment tool can help to diagnose this disorder, as the symptoms are so prevalent that they are difficult to ignore. Treatment of this disorder is difficult to accomplish, however, and most people afflicted with a narcissist personality disorder continue the behavior and grow into more hardened cases. It is also very disconcerting to know that narcissism is not a psychological anomaly in that many human beings display some narcissistic behavior starting as early as childhood, with society being an acceptor of such behaviors.
With the grim realities of narcissism stimulating psychological studies in today’s world, it seems unlikely that there will be successful treatments and determents from this disorder. While defining and diagnosing narcissism is a task that is quite obtainable, it is overwhelmingly palpable that treatment is a perspective of this disorder that is complex. With the social implications of narcissism as well as the harm it causes, it is a crucial challenge to continue the discovery of this disorder. Psychology has been a focus of interest throughout history with the attempt of uncovering the human psyche and curing illnesses of the mind. It is a fascinating field of study with many new and exciting discoveries made regularly. Therefore, it is comprehensible that some day narcissism will be easier to understand, eventually encouraging obliteration.
References
Bushman, B, & Baumeister, R (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and
direct and displaced. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 75, 14-19. Crown, S., Freeman, H. (1994). The Book of Psychiatric Books. Lanham, MD: Jason
Aronson.
Sarason, I., Sarason, B. (2002) Abnormal Psychology: The problem of maladaptive
behavior (10th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Straker , David (2009). Narcissism. Retrieved May 24, 2009, from ChangingMinds.org
Web site: http://changingminds.org/disciplines/psychoanalysis/concepts/narcissism.htm.
JEANNETTE VILLATORO
Abnormal psychology is a realm of psychological study that dares to define maladaptive behavior and discover the causal effects of less than normal attributes in terms of human conduct. Abnormal psychology envelops many inflictions from depression to serious psychological disorders. Among these psychological abnormalities are personality disorders in which prove to be cumbersome for people in regards to adapting well with their environment. Narcissism is one such personality disorder that can be very dilapidating to an individual. This author will attempt to delve into the definition of narcissism, explore some of its causes and effects and how it relates to society, and measure the possibility of success in terms of psychological treatment for this disorder.
Narcissism Defined
It is imperative for people to positively interact in a social setting. Human beings require social interaction and crave compatibility with others. These are significant aspects of human nature that narcissism defies. Those diagnosed with narcissism lack the desire to interact and expects only acknowledgment of their own presence. Moreover, they deliberately concentrate on the importance and impact of their existence rather relying on constructive interface with other people. Therefore, narcissism is a staid disorder in which a huge deficit in social contexts and a concentration on self prevents healthy and successful living.
The word narcissism comes from a character in a tale by Ovid in which a proud, handsome son of a god and nymph named Narcissus rejects the love of another who then puts a spell on him that entices him to fall in love with his own reflection in a pond. Narcissus continually admires his reflection, but perils and dies because it is inaccessible (Straker, D., 2009).
Narcissism falls into the dominion of personality disorders that involve “dramatic, emotional, or erratic behavior” (Sarason, I., Sarason, B., 2002, p. 301). A person diagnosed with narcissist personality will portray many self-serving traits. This ostentatious person is focused mainly on their self, has little or no regard for others, and will easily cause harm to others without any thought. This person thrives on attention and believes they have elevated self-importance (Sarason, I., Sarason, B., 2002). Common observation leads to a notion that those with narcissism have higher self-esteem, which in turn leads to aggression. “This theory is evidenced by nationalistic imperialism, master race ideologies, aristocratic dueling, playground bullies, and street gang rhetoric” (Bushman, B., Baumeister, R., 1998, p. 1).
Narcissism has been a fascinating issue in psychology since the history of time. Psychoanalytical upheaval of this disorder can indeed be traced back to earlier historical times, in which many psychologists and scientists worked tirelessly on narcissism. One of the most prominent psychologists that dared to elicit answers and define this disorder was Sigmund Freud. The attempt to grasp the disorder and its many complexities continue with psychology today.
According to current psychological consideration of this disorder, there are two types of narcissistic behavior that is categorized in psychological study. Primary narcissism is said to be the main type of narcissism in which develops in infanthood. Young babies must be self-focused in order to preserve and protect their life and gain attention from parents during the development of self (Straker, D., 2009) Secondary narcissism is evident in “older children and adults seek personal gratification over the achievement of social goals and conformance to social values” (Straker, D., 2009, p. 1).
With the extreme connotations of this disorder, and the adverse effects it has on individuals and society, narcissism infects many. However, even with its serious inference, it is also a commonality among most people. Human beings are born with a distinct of amount narcissism as a survival tool. Children have similar focus on their own well being as they grow and remain the center of attention in families. It is when an individual displays severe disregard for others and will deliberately impair the comfort of others in order to continue a self-serving motive that narcissim takes a form of dangerous proportions and can be identified as a personality dysfunction. The true challenge is to identify the line between normal self-functioning and the onset of narcissism as a personality disorder.
Narcissism is a dangerous affliction. Most personality disorders have the common factor of affecting the afflicted individual greatly. Ease of living and quality of life are highly troubled by personality disorders. A person’s way of handling problems and adversity are limited to a set way of thinking and behaving, which inhibits true success in life (Sarason, I., Sarason, B., 2002). Narcissism is unique, however, due to its blatant affect on other people. One with narcissism causes trauma to others, deliberately manipulates or hurts another person to gain individual satisfaction, and can greatly cause turmoil to loved ones and family members. Because of these distinct factors of this personality disorder, narcissism is a serious burden with little hope of reversal and a dramatic implication on the rest of society.
Cause and Effect
The causes of narcissism are difficult at best to uncover in a general standpoint. It is evident that this disorder accumulates often in early adulthood (Sarason, I., Sarason, B., 2002). Because each individual is different and life situations are fluctuated among each person, it is hard to discover any supposed caused of this disorder. Psychological differences are copious among each person as well. What psychology has proven coherently through study is that environmental and psychological influences are usually forces that work hand-in-hand. Therefore, trying to unearth specific attributes to a certain disorder can be trying at the least.
The psychobiology is thought to be a major cause of narcissism. How the brain functions in connection with behavior can lead to many narcissistic tendencies. A negative childhood or a childhood filled with excessive attention and indulgence hoisted upon the child are also said to have a major effect on this disorder. Abuse and neglect are also predisposed conditions that may lead to narcissism as well as many other disorders (Crown, S., Freeman, H., 1994).
The diagnosis of narcissism is quite easier to discern than causal instigations of the disorder. Symptoms of narcissism include lack of feeling for others, a willingness to take advantage of others, exaggerated belief in self-ability, a heightened sense of self-importance, focus on wealth and power, a demand for special attention without particular cause, and a stipulation of being admired by others (Sarason, I., Sarason, B., 2002). Though many human beings have some minuscule specimens of these particular symptoms that can be manifested in everyday life, it is particularly of concern when these symptoms are extreme and are displayed in unison that narcissism is a possibility. With the observation of narcissistic symptoms, there are ways for psychologists to determine the severity of the disorder and the many factors that play a role in the overall magnitude of narcissism within an individual.
Narcissism is a grim disorder yet the idiom is used commonly when describing someone with a seemingly inflated ego. Although varying degrees of narcissism is possible, with some phases proving less severe than others, it is important to diagnose the disorder officially. This can be done lucratively using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) in psychology. This provides the possibility for a psychologist or clinician to diagnose certain disorders using a multiaxial assessment system (Sarason, I., Sarason, B., 2002). The Axis diagnostic model is the best tool for capturing and categorizing narcissism, which is compartmentalized as an Axis II disorder. Within this diagnostic instrument, psychologists can determine certain characteristics and models of behavior that calculate a true disorder.
Within the Axis model, there are separate categories of diagnosis that help define a disorder, its properties, and any other physical or mental contributions to the said disorder. Axis I will detect clinical disorders. If a clinical health diagnosis is absent, V71.09 will be placed within the first Axis (Sarason, I., Sarason, B., 2002). Axis II is for mental retardation and personality disorders. Axis III will illustrate medical conditions, while Axis IV will represent psychosocial and environmental factors. Axis V will give a professional a synopsis and overall view of the complete disorder that a patient suffers from (Sarason, I., Sarason, B., 2002). If a patient came in to a psychologist’s office with several symptoms, the Axis would be used to connect all abnormalities and determine a diagnosis. For example, if the patient was found to have an episode of major depressive disorder and drug abuse, it would be concluded within Axis I. Narcissism would be in Axis II, and infection of the nose and throat with open wounds on abdomen would belong in Axis III. If the patient has been unemployed for several months, has a promiscuous lifestyle, and also has a poor relationship with siblings, this would fit in Axis IV. The final diagnosis would be exhibited in Axis V and would include a GAF score to establish the rigorous nature of the total disorder.
Self-aggrandizing behavior is common in society today and may even be accepted in some forms. We see narcissism in overly deserving financial choices that Americans make on an everyday basis, and we notice self-serving behaviors among individuals working to get ahead in life. Yet, it is a term used loosely to create an insult to someone with high self-esteem or general interest in his or her own well-being. Narcissism as a disorder runs much deeper than this, and the causes are among a great psychological struggle to uncover. The effects of narcissism, however, are much less difficult to penetrate and realize, as narcissism effects many and can lead to aggression and even violent behavior.
The connotation that low self-esteem causes aggressive behavior is well on its way to extinction. There is little proof to back that scenario, and furthermore, it is evident that those with aggressive propensities oftentimes display unusually amounts of high self-esteem or regard for one’s own self (Bushman, B., Baumeister, R., 1998). Once a person with narcissistic behavior feels that their self-esteem or self-efficacy is threatened, that person has a good chance of lashing out on others. Furthermore, the act of gaining satisfaction from hurting or manipulating others tends to branch new and dangerous territory for society. Narcissism is unlike many disorders because of the ability to effect others. Many psychological disorders cause harm, but usually the person distressed with the disorder is the one who is internally disturbed and tortured by the affliction.
Another seemingly consequential effect of narcissism is that the person with this disorder has less chance of rehabilitation as the disorder progresses. Regard for one’s self grows to immense proportions, and the importance of maintaining the heightened ego becomes a necessity. The deliberate burden that is pushed on others to uphold a narcissistic personality is quite bothersome. If a narcissist loses his or her viewed abilities and entitlement, danger may ensue involving violent behavior. The worse fear of a narcissist is that they become less significant in the world. Therefore, the narcissism grows continually and becomes a reality that is not easily shaken, regardless of substantial treatment measures that are applied.
In addition to the harm this disorder causes within society and one’s self, this disorder also affects the afflicted person in many other ways. Adjusting to society is nearly impossible as the disorder grows. A person with narcissism cannot communicate or fit in with others. Working or gaining meaningful relationships are tasks that are beyond capability for a narcissist (Crown, S., Freeman, H., 1994). The patient will fall into a small world created only of their own wills and desires that are nearly impossible to control, creating mass distention of the disorder. In an accurate and compelling description of narcissism and the trials of this disorder, one source explains the intent of a narcissist and the effects of the disorder, “narcissism is characterized by feelings of superiority over other people, and so simple disregard for the rights and feelings of others could result in higher aggression, even in the absence of threat. It is also plausible that narcissists perceive social life as a series of struggles for dominance, and so they may attack others regardless of direct threat, simply as a means of establishing themselves in a superior position by conquering or intimidating other individuals” (Bushman, B., Baumeister, R., 1998, p. 3).
Treatment and Successful Dissuading
Treating narcissism disorder entails much complexity. One who is living with the distorted reality of narcissism may have grown to obtain it throughout childhood with finally gaining momentum in early adulthood. Someone with this disorder may be very comfortable with his or her ideal ways of thinking and behaving, making successful finality of treatment almost impossible. There is very little hope that treatment will cure this disorder, as narcissism involves a strong sense of being and a guarded way of thinking. Nonetheless, treatment is available within the psychological spectrum. In order to treat someone for narcissism, the particular candidacies must be unearthed that seemingly may have caused narcissism within this individual. A malignant narcissist may defy any change in behavior and will especially disagree with any prognosis made by anther human being. If the narcissist has had success in life with the way they have lived, it may be even more difficult to pry them away from their way of behaving. It is a narrow path to walk in treating narcissism, but there are many techniques in which promote rays of minimal hope in decreasing this steadily dangerous personality disorder.
Despite a grandiose sense of self, and a likely chance to resist treatment, some narcissists are not necessarily happy with their condition and internally seek help to change. In these cases, treatment is possible and worthy of attempt. Another reason for a narcissist to seek treatment is if they feel that their reality has been threatened by accomplishments by others, and their self-image has been somewhat damaged. The desire would be to have their self-importance validated and restored. The most common treatment that is implemented with narcissism is through psychotherapy either individually or in a group setting. A narcissist may experience other symptoms that affect the disorder in which antidepressants and medications may be prescribed.
Narcissism is almost regarded as a mystery in psychology. This self-serving disorder inhibits truly successful functioning in society as well as being a major detriment to others. It has been studies throughout history and has yet to find a sustainable causal relationship with environmental or biological factors. The DSM-IV assessment tool can help to diagnose this disorder, as the symptoms are so prevalent that they are difficult to ignore. Treatment of this disorder is difficult to accomplish, however, and most people afflicted with a narcissist personality disorder continue the behavior and grow into more hardened cases. It is also very disconcerting to know that narcissism is not a psychological anomaly in that many human beings display some narcissistic behavior starting as early as childhood, with society being an acceptor of such behaviors.
With the grim realities of narcissism stimulating psychological studies in today’s world, it seems unlikely that there will be successful treatments and determents from this disorder. While defining and diagnosing narcissism is a task that is quite obtainable, it is overwhelmingly palpable that treatment is a perspective of this disorder that is complex. With the social implications of narcissism as well as the harm it causes, it is a crucial challenge to continue the discovery of this disorder. Psychology has been a focus of interest throughout history with the attempt of uncovering the human psyche and curing illnesses of the mind. It is a fascinating field of study with many new and exciting discoveries made regularly. Therefore, it is comprehensible that some day narcissism will be easier to understand, eventually encouraging obliteration.
References
Bushman, B, & Baumeister, R (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and
direct and displaced. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 75, 14-19. Crown, S., Freeman, H. (1994). The Book of Psychiatric Books. Lanham, MD: Jason
Aronson.
Sarason, I., Sarason, B. (2002) Abnormal Psychology: The problem of maladaptive
behavior (10th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Straker , David (2009). Narcissism. Retrieved May 24, 2009, from ChangingMinds.org
Web site: http://changingminds.org/disciplines/psychoanalysis/concepts/narcissism.htm.
Qualitatitive Paradigm ©
JEANNETTE VILLATORO
At the heart of all research is the question: what data is appropriate? I personally lean to the side of qualitative data because I am a hands-on type of person that seems to look at the whole picture and try to connect clues in that way. I am not a numbers kind of gal, so the qualitative approach peaks my interest. Qualitative data is a great tool to use in research. A researcher must ascertain if qualitative data is appropriate for not only the subject matter, but also the experiment. Since numbers aren’t the star player in this kind of research, there must be verifiable aspects that are bright and obvious to the phenomenon at hand.
Qualitative research is unique in the field. It is a way for the experimenter to jump in and observe and study something in its entirety rather than narrowing it down to certain aspects of its credentials (Davis, Smith, 2009). Usually this approach is valued with the overall picture in a holistic view, and the researcher determines the results after jumping in full force in the natural setting (Davis, Smith, 2009). Details are built rather than destructed to prove the matters of the research.
So, it may be feasible to wonder how research is conducted in a respected and verifiable manner in a field that seems to favor scientific readiness and surety with calculations. Confirmability is one of the most fundamentally significant factors involved in data analysis, especially when it has to do with qualitative data. The recorder, or experimenter that reports the findings, is at the heart of this project and the confirmability of it (Davis, Smith, 2009). There must not be any cause for bias to seep into the realm of the study or the data that is recorded. Accuracy is a must with unbiased and confirmable findings. The best way to ensure this is to have other researchers work on a report to compare what was interpreted. Another method is for the researcher to “indicate the procedures they used” (Davis, Smith, 2009, p. 51) so that anyone observing the data can check the findings and how they were brought about. And finally, coding can be used to make certain that the findings and the process of reaching them are understood. This involves “labeling and categorizing the phenomena being studied” (Davis, Smith, 2009, p. 55) as well as using distinct coding techniques to discover gaps between certain areas and by telling the story of the findings.
Because the researcher is using qualitative date, he or she must be aware of the possible scrutiny that may come from the final result. There may not be data calculations or sums to prove what was sought and collected, therefore these measures of confirmability, making sure that bias is never involved in addition to coding the data must be used to keep the nature of qualitative research alive and well and deemed as reliable as quantitative research.
References
Davis, S. F., & Smith, R. A. (2009). The Psychologist as Detective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
At the heart of all research is the question: what data is appropriate? I personally lean to the side of qualitative data because I am a hands-on type of person that seems to look at the whole picture and try to connect clues in that way. I am not a numbers kind of gal, so the qualitative approach peaks my interest. Qualitative data is a great tool to use in research. A researcher must ascertain if qualitative data is appropriate for not only the subject matter, but also the experiment. Since numbers aren’t the star player in this kind of research, there must be verifiable aspects that are bright and obvious to the phenomenon at hand.
Qualitative research is unique in the field. It is a way for the experimenter to jump in and observe and study something in its entirety rather than narrowing it down to certain aspects of its credentials (Davis, Smith, 2009). Usually this approach is valued with the overall picture in a holistic view, and the researcher determines the results after jumping in full force in the natural setting (Davis, Smith, 2009). Details are built rather than destructed to prove the matters of the research.
So, it may be feasible to wonder how research is conducted in a respected and verifiable manner in a field that seems to favor scientific readiness and surety with calculations. Confirmability is one of the most fundamentally significant factors involved in data analysis, especially when it has to do with qualitative data. The recorder, or experimenter that reports the findings, is at the heart of this project and the confirmability of it (Davis, Smith, 2009). There must not be any cause for bias to seep into the realm of the study or the data that is recorded. Accuracy is a must with unbiased and confirmable findings. The best way to ensure this is to have other researchers work on a report to compare what was interpreted. Another method is for the researcher to “indicate the procedures they used” (Davis, Smith, 2009, p. 51) so that anyone observing the data can check the findings and how they were brought about. And finally, coding can be used to make certain that the findings and the process of reaching them are understood. This involves “labeling and categorizing the phenomena being studied” (Davis, Smith, 2009, p. 55) as well as using distinct coding techniques to discover gaps between certain areas and by telling the story of the findings.
Because the researcher is using qualitative date, he or she must be aware of the possible scrutiny that may come from the final result. There may not be data calculations or sums to prove what was sought and collected, therefore these measures of confirmability, making sure that bias is never involved in addition to coding the data must be used to keep the nature of qualitative research alive and well and deemed as reliable as quantitative research.
References
Davis, S. F., & Smith, R. A. (2009). The Psychologist as Detective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
