In 1,250-1,500 words, do the following: Describe some of the theoretical best practices for restorative justice, crime prevention, and corrections.Explain how the theoretical best practices are, and a

Swamped with your writing assignments? We'll take the academic weight off your shoulders. We complete all our papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report upon request just to confirm.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

In 1,250-1,500 words, do the following:

  1. Describe some of the theoretical best practices for restorative justice, crime prevention, and corrections.
  2. Explain how the theoretical best practices are, and are not, manifested in current correctional settings in the United States.
  3. Explain different ways to improve rehabilitative services to make them more readily utilized within the criminal justice system, and better aligned to the theoretical best practices you identified.

Provide five to seven peer reviewed resources to support your explanations.

In 1,250-1,500 words, do the following: Describe some of the theoretical best practices for restorative justice, crime prevention, and corrections.Explain how the theoretical best practices are, and a
Sub m is sio n I d e: 1 f6 9c1 e2 -8 3b 3-4 637 -9 92 0-0 fe d a0 f8 65c8 68 % SIM IL A RIT Y S C O RE 13   CIT A TIO N I T E M S 23   GRA M MAR I S SU E S 0   F EED BA C K C O M MEN T In te rn et S ourc e   2 % In stitu tio n   66 % Britn ey C oole y Ben ch m ark – C om parin g T heo re ti c al B est P ra cti c es to A ctu al P ra cti c es S um mary   137 9 W ord s   TH E T H EO RETIC A L B EST P R A CTIC ES 1 TH E T H EO RETIC A L B EST P R A CTIC ES 2  Red und ant p hra se : so m e o f th e  so m e The t h eo re tic a l b est p ra ctic es Brit n ey C oole y Gra n d C an yon U niv ers it y Augu st 2 5, 2 02 2 1. Desc r ib e so m e of th e th eo retic a l best pra ctic e s fo r resto ra tiv e ju stic e , cr im e prev en tio n , a n d c o rrectio n s. Theo re tic a l best pra ctic es fo r co rre ctio n s, crim e pre v en tio n , an d re sto ra tiv e ju stic e are TH E T H EO RETIC A L B EST P R A CTIC ES 3 pra ctic es of re sto ra tiv e ju stic e are sig n if ic a n t sin ce it aim s at mak in g offe n ders re a liz e th eir actio n s, b rin g r e co n cilia tio n , a n d s o lv e c o n flic ts . Crim e pre v en tio n en ta ils atte m pts aim in g at re d u ce crim e. Crim e pre v en tio n is desig n ed fo r in te rv en tio n to decre a se crie s in th e sh ort te rm th ro u gh decre a sin g crim in al pro pen sit y . There fo re , th eo re tic a l best pra ctic es of crim e pre v en tio n are an y actio n s th at ca n be ta k en to dete r or re d u ce crim e in so cie ty . Gav rie lid es (2 01 8), th e sit u atio n al th eo ry of crim e pre v en tio n crim in al beh av io r is a re su lt of th e actio n alt e rn ativ es perc eiv ed by an in div id u al. Perc ep tio n lin ks in div id u als an d th eir en vir o n m en t. The sit u atio n al th eo ry su ggests th at in div id u als may se e crim e as th e on ly way ou t of certa in sit u atio n s an d hen ce ex ecu te th e crim in al actio n s du e to a tr ig ger by te m pta tio n or pro voca tio n . The best pra ctic es of crim e pre v en tio n co n sid er th ese fa cto rs an d su ggest way s in whic h crim es th at occu r in th ese ty pes of co n dit io n s an d en vir o n m en ts ca n be pre v en te d (Z hen g 202 1). Due to th ese re a so n s, dif fe re n t crim e pre v en tio n mech an is m s are su ggeste d . These mech an is m s en ta il main ta in in g an d re se a rc h in g norm ativ e barrie rs whic h ca n re d u ce crim es. Cre a tin g se rio u s pu nis h m en t th re a ts am on g th e gen era l pu blic to dete r crim es, re d u ctio n of motiv ato rs th at le a d to crim e, re d u ctio n of th e co n se q u en ces of crim es th at may occu r, an d pro te ctio n of vu ln era b le ta rg ets whic h ca n be c rim e v ic tim s. A ll t h ese p ra ctic es a re a im ed a t t h e s o le p u rp ose o f p re v en tio n o f c rim e. 2. Exp la in how th e th eo retic a l best pra ctic e s are, an d are not, man if e ste d in cu rren t co rrectio n al s e ttin gs i n t h e U nit e d S ta te s.  Stu d en t: Subm itte d to G ra nd C any on U niv ers ity  Spellin g m is ta ke: Mouso ura kis  Stu d en t: Subm itte d to G ra nd C any on U niv ers ity  Passiv e v oic e: crim in als a re r e fo rm ed b y  Stu d en t: Subm itte d to G ra nd C any on U niv ers ity  Passiv e v oic e: hen ce a re r e co ncil e d b y  Passiv e v oic e: have b een a ffe cte d  assis t, a ssis ta nce ( h elp ): assis t  help  Spellin g m is ta ke: Aliv erd in ia  Stu d en t: Subm itte d to G ra nd C any on U niv ers ity  Thre e s u ccessiv e s e n te n ces b eg in w it…: The  Stu d en t: Subm itte d to G ra nd C any on U niv ers ity  Spellin g m is ta ke: Gavrie lid es  Red und ant p hra se : gen era l p ublic  public esse n tia l fo r th e sm ooth ru nnin g of th e crim in al ju stic e sy ste m ( Mou so u ra k is 201 8). Resto ra tiv e pra ctic es en ta il cre a tin g good re la tio n sh ip s betw een peo ple to re p air harm , decre a se crim e, an d bu ild hea lt h y so cie tie s . Crim e pre v en tio n aim s at re d u cin g an d at th e sa m e tim e dete rrin g crim in als an d crim e. Corre ctio n s are where crim in als are re fo rm ed by co n fin em en t as a pu nis h m en t. Sig n if ic a n tly , best pra ctic es in co rre ctio n s, crim e pre v en tio n , an d re sto ra tiv e ju stic e a re r e la te d . Theo re tic a l ap pro ach es to re sto ra tiv e ju stic e en ta il cir c le s, fa m ily gro u p co n fe re n cin g, an d vic tim -o ffe n der med ia tio n . The med ia tio n betw een th e offe n ders an d vic tim s dis c u sse s th e gen era l id ea th at a pers o n who has been hu rt by an oth er ca n fe el bette r if th e partie s ta lk ab ou t it (R ogers & Mille r 201 8). The th eo re tic a l pra ctic e ad voca te s fo r a meetin g betw een offe n ders an d vic tim s an d hen ce are re co n cile d by a tr a in ed med ia to r. Con se q u en tly , th e th eo ry of fa m ily gro u p co n fe re n cin g ap plie s th e sa m e id ea as re sto ra tiv e ju stic e. In th e fa m ily gro u p co n fe re n cin g it is th e peo ple who hav e been affe cte d by th e crim e as week as su pporte rs , frie n ds, fa m ilie s, an d th e offe n ders sh arin g th eir ex perie n ces . Each affe cte d party desc rib es th e im pacts of th e in cid en t on th eir liv es an d th e narra tio n s assis t th e crim in als to unders ta n d th e im pact of th eir actio n s on th e liv es of th e vic tim s an d th eir fa m ilie s ( Aliv erd in ia & Ansa ri 201 9 ). The vic tim sh ou ld re co m men d th e desir e d ou tc o m e of what sh ou ld hap pen to th e offe n der fo r th eir actio n s acco rd in g to th e fa m ily gro u p co n fe re n cin g th eo ry . The fa m ily gro u p co n fe re n cin g ap pro ach su ggests th at all partie s sh ou ld hav e an in pu t in so lv in g th eir pro ble m th ro u gh co n tr ib u tio n s. The cir c le s su ch as su pport, ta lk in g, an d pea cem ak in g are als o a re sto ra tiv e ju stic e ap pro ach (S ch if f 201 8). Thom as et al., (2 01 9), cir c le s offe r a hea lin g re sp on se to crim e in a re sp ectf u l, eg alit a ria n , an d open dia lo gu e. All th e th eo re tic a l best Corre ctio n al fa cilit ie s pla y an esse n tia l ro le in th e crim in al ju stic e sy ste m as co n vic te d crim in als are allo w ed to se rv e co rre ctio n s in a co rre ctio n al fa cilit y ( Mou so u ra k is 201 8). A co rre ctio n al cen te r is a pla ce where crim in als se rv e th eir co rre ctio n al pro cess th ro u gh im pris o n m en t as a pu nis h m en t beca u se it dep riv es th em of man y fre ed om s . Rogers an d Mille r (2 01 8) in ca rc era te d peo ple , in ad dit io n to th eir pu nis h m en t, le a rn man y new th in gs du rin g th eir im pris o n m en t th at ca n help th em beco m e bette r peo ple in so cie ty an d le a v e a lif e of crim e. TH E T H EO RETIC A L B EST P R A CTIC ES 4 Som e of th e best co rre ctio n al pra ctic es su ggeste d by th eo ry on th is to pic in clu de a model of ch an ge th at sh ow s ex actly how th e co rre ctio n al pro cess will affe ct an offe n der’s lif e . The model pro vid es a cle a r ex pla n atio n th at th e co rre ctio n al pro cess will in flu en ce crim in al beh av io r an d sh ou ld be ab le to id en tif y th e dy nam ic ris k fa cto rs th at le a d to crim in al beh av io r of in div id u als an d th u s effe ctiv ely dea l wit h th em ( Aliv erd in ia & Ansa ri 201 9). Oth er re m ed ia l pra ctic es en ta il co n se q u en ces th at may re su lt fro m non co m plia n ce an d re w ard s fo r meetin g th e beh av io ra l ex pecta tio n s pla ced upon th em . In ad dit io n , th e use of effe ctiv e ev id en ce-b ase d meth ods, ap pro pria te co m munic a tio n sy ste m s, an d co rre ctio n al ap pro ach es to offe n ders so th at th ey k now w hat i s e x pecte d o f t h em . Nota b ly , co rre ctio n al in stit u tio n s in th e Unit e d Sta te s hav e im ple m en te d most of th e th eo re tic a l best pra ctic es aim ed at th e re h ab ilit a tio n of offe n ders , whic h re d u ces th e re cid iv is m of offe n ders when th ey re tu rn to so cie ty (S ch if f 201 8). Those in ca rc era te d are giv en cle a r gu id an ce on how to re w ard th ose who co m ply , th e co n se q u en ces of non -c o m plia n ce , an d why th ey are in dete n tio n fa cilit ie s. Durin g in ca rc era tio n , psy ch olo gis ts als o help asse ss th e ris k fa cto rs th at pre d is p ose crim in als to co m mit a crim e. Such asse ssm en ts help id en tif y crim in ogen ic ris k s th at ca n be ad dre sse d to re d u ce th e lik elih ood of re o ffe n din g afte r an offe n der is re le a se d fro m pris o n (T hom as et al., 201 9). Befo re offe n ders are re le a se d back in to so cie ty , a ris k asse ssm en t is ca rrie d ou t base d on th e in div id u al’s beh av io ra l pro gre ss to dete rm in e wheth er th ey are re a d y to le a v e a lif e of crim e an d beco m e good cit iz en s of so cie ty . The co rre ctio n al sy ste m in th e Unit e d Sta te s als o en su re s sm ooth re in te g ra tio n in to so cie ty by assig n in g re le a se d offe n ders to co m munit y offic ers who help mon it o r th eir pro gre ss an d assis t th em i n s m ooth r e in te g ra tio n i n to s o cie ty ( Gav rie lid es 2 01 8 ). 3. Exp la in dif fe ren t ways to im pro v e reh ab ilit a tiv e se rv ic e s to mak e th em more rea d ily utiliz ed wit h in th e cr im in al ju stic e sy ste m , an d bette r alig n ed to th e th eo retic a l b est p ra ctic e s y ou i d en tif ie d . TH E T H EO RETIC A L B EST P R A CTIC ES 5  Spellin g m is ta ke: Mouso ura kis  Stu d en t: Subm itte d to G ra nd C any on U niv ers ity  Spellin g m is ta ke: Aliv erd in ia  Stu d en t: Subm itte d to G ra nd C any on U niv ers ity  Cohere n t s p el…: non-c o m plia nc…  nonco m plia nce  Spellin g m is ta k…: crim in og en ic  ca rc in og en ic  Spellin g m is ta ke: re o ffe n d in g  re o ffe n d in g  assis t, a ssis ta nce ( h elp ): assis t  help  Spellin g m is ta ke: Gavrie lid es  Stu d en t: Subm itte d to G ra nd C any on U niv ers ity Reh ab ilit a tio n se rv ic es aim to fre e peo ple fro m a lif e of crim e so th at th ey ca n beco m e bette r peo ple in so cie ty (Z hen g 202 1). Mou so u ra k is (2 01 8), effe ctiv e re h ab ilit a tio n se rv ic es le a d to a bette r so cie ty as offe n ders ca n re a liz e th at th eir actio n s neg ativ ely affe ct th e liv es of oth ers an d th u s str iv e to beco m e bette r peo ple afte r underg oin g th e re h ab ilit a tio n pro cess. Exis tin g re h ab ilit a tio n se rv ic es ca n be im pro ved to hav e a gre a te r im pact on offe n ders by alig n in g se rv ic es wit h best pra ctic es (R ogers & Mille r 201 8). More atte n tio n sh ou ld be paid to TH E T H EO RETIC A L B EST P R A CTIC ES 6 Refe re n ces Aliv erd in ia , A., & Ansa ri, P. (2 01 9). Crim e Pre v en tio n Str a te g ie s: Resto ra tiv e Ju stic e as an Alt e rn ativ e to Tra d it io n al Dete rre n ce an d Crim in al Ju stic e. Socio -C ultu ra l Str a te g y , 8 (1 ), 1 47-1 74. Gav rie lid es, T. (2 01 8). Epilo gu e: Resto ra tiv e ju stic e wit h ca re an d re sp on sib ilit y : new dir e ctio n s in re sto ra tiv e ju stic e th eo ry , pra ctic e, an d crit ic a l th in kin g. In Routle d ge in te rn atio nal h andbook o f r e sto ra tiv e j u stic e ( p p. 4 88-5 03 ). R ou tle d ge. Mou so u ra k is , G. (2 01 8). Resto ra tiv e ju stic e: Pers p ectiv es on co n te m pora ry th eo re tic a l an d em pir ic a l i s su es. Hungaria n J o urn al o f L eg al S tu die s , 59 (3 ), 2 43-2 59. Rogers , R., & Mille r, H. V. (2 01 8). Resto ra tiv e ju stic e. The Handbook of Socia l Contr o l , 167 – 180. Sch if f, M. (2 01 8). Can re sto ra tiv e ju stic e dis ru pt th e ‘s c h ool- to -p ris o n pip elin e?’. Conte m pora ry J u stic e R evie w , 21 (2 ), 1 21-1 39. Thom as, E. C., Bilg er, A., Wils o n , A. B., & Dra in e, J. (2 01 9). Con cep tu aliz in g re sto ra tiv e ju stic e fo r peo ple wit h men ta l illn esse s le a v in g pris o n or ja il. Am eric a n Jo urn al of Orth opsy ch ia tr y , 89 (6 ), 6 93 . Zhen g, J. (2 02 1). A stu dy of psy ch o-c o rre ctio n dis c o u rs e in co m munit y co rre ctio n under re sto ra tiv e ju stic e fro m th e pers p ectiv e of in div id u atio n . In te rn atio nal Jo urn al of Speech , L anguage a nd t h e L aw , 28 (1 ), 1 39-1 43.  Stu d en t: Subm itte d to G ra nd C any on U niv ers ity  Spellin g m is ta ke: Mouso ura kis  Red und ant p hra se : main f o cu s  fo cu s  Spellin g m is ta k…: crim in og en ic  ca rc in og en ic  Spellin g m is ta ke: Aliv erd in ia  Passiv e v oic e: have b een ta ken  Stu d en t: Subm itte d to G ra nd C any on U niv ers ity  Adapt to v . a d opt to : ad opt to  ad apt to  Web C onte n t: http : // re a l.m ta k.h u / 93922 /  Web C onte n t: http s: // web net.f a u.e d u / sw -c j / docu m en ts / cv -s c h if f.p d f …th e id en tif ic a tio n of ris k fa cto rs so th at th e main fo cu s ca n be pla ced on co m batin g crim in ogen ic ris k s, th ere b y cre a tin g a gre a te r im pact on th e liv es of offe n ders by elim in atin g th eir crim in al beh av io r or te n den cie s ( Aliv erd in ia & Ansa ri 201 9 ). Post-s e n te n ce asse ssm en t of offe n ders sh ou ld dete rm in e wheth er in div id u al motiv es fo r offe n din g hav e been ta k en in to acco u nt t o e n su re t h ey d o n ot r e -o ffe n d. Con clu sio n In co n clu sio n , th eo re tic a l best pra ctic es fo r co rre ctio n s, crim e pre v en tio n , an d re co very are im porta n t in gu id in g how crim in al ju stic e sy ste m s ad dre ss vario u s ch alle n ges. Resto ra tiv e ju stic e pra ctic es are vit a l beca u se th ey allo w offe n ders to unders ta n d th e im pact of th eir actio n s on oth ers , th u s giv in g th em a re a so n to mak e am en ds. Crim e pre v en tio n th eo ry is als o vit a l beca u se it pro vid es th e ap pro ach es th at th e crim in al ju stic e sy ste m sh ou ld ad opt to dete r fu tu re crim e. Corre ctio n al mea su re s help th e crim in al to re h ab ilit a te an d th u s beco m e a mora lly uprig h t pers o n in so cie ty . The Unit e d Sta te s crim in al ju stic e sy ste m must im ple m en t th eo re tic a l best pra ctic es fo r co rre ctio n , crim e pre v en tio n , an d re h ab ilit a tio n as th ey ben efit so cie ty .  Stu d en t: Subm itte d to G ra nd C any on U niv ers ity

Writerbay.net

We offer CUSTOM-WRITTEN, CONFIDENTIAL, ORIGINAL, and PRIVATE writing services. Kindly click on the ORDER NOW button to receive an A++ paper from our masters- and PhD writers.

Get a 10% discount on your order using the following coupon code SAVE10


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper