Response To A Required Reading 10001250 Wordsloya
Response To A Required Reading 10001250 Wordsloya
Response to a required reading—an article, a chapter, or a book—relates as clearly as possible what the author says. When you write a summary, you strive for objectivity and accuracy as you relate the main ideas of the original. A summary omits details and examples that are not needed to convey the "gist" of the original, and it does not include any ideas not found in the original. It is written entirely in your own words, with few, if any, direct quotations, and using present tense.
A summary does not analyze, evaluate, or argue a position; it simply restates the original material in a much more condensed form. How does the work relate to your own experiences? This kind of response explains your personal reaction to the work. When you write a reflective response, you explore how the work relates to your own experiences, beliefs, and values. Is the writer’s claim validated by any of your own experiences? Did the reading confirm, challenge, or change in any way your original viewpoint on the topic? Because the reflective response often involves discussion of your own experiences, beliefs, and values in relation to what you read, this response is usually written in the first person.
Another kind of response to a reading is a critical response. Critical analysis examines how the author says what he/she says. When you write a critical analysis, you examine the various elements of the work to discover how they function together to form an effective whole. The elements you examine depend upon your specific purpose for analysis. For example, an analysis of an argument might look at the argument’s claims and reasons, supporting information (evidence), and logic. An analysis of a short story might focus on how the setting relates to the story’s meaning. An analysis includes only as much summary of the work as is needed for a reader to follow the analysis and understand how it relates to the original argument.
The analytical response avoids personal reflection on agreement or disagreement with the ideas. Often, critical analysis also evaluates the work, making judgments about how well it fulfills its purpose. In that case, your analysis would support a judgment about the overall effectiveness of the work, such as the credibility and persuasiveness of an argument: Is the thesis built on reasonable and valid claims and reasons? Are these claims supported with convincing supporting information and sound reasoning? Is its argument persuasive?
What is your position on the topic or issue? This kind of response asserts a position on the topic, supported with reasons and evidence. When you write an argumentative response, you explain why you agree or disagree, in whole or in part, with the writer’s claims and ideas. You may agree with the claim by elaborating upon the main points of the argument with original support (your own ideas and evidence), or you may disagree with the claim by challenging and questioning those points.
Paper For Above instruction
The assigned reading deals with the critical examination of juvenile justice and emphasizes a developmental approach based on scientific research into adolescent brain and cognitive development. The authors, Cauffman and Steinberg (2012), explore whether the juvenile justice system takes into account the neurodevelopmental differences between adolescents and adults, and how these differences impact juvenile accountability and rehabilitation. They argue that sentencing adolescents as if they were fully responsible adults ignores significant biological and psychological immaturity that influences adolescents' decision-making capacities.
The central premise of the piece is that adolescent brain development, particularly in areas responsible for impulse control, risk assessment, and self-regulation, is incomplete until the early twenties (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2012). This impairs adolescents' ability to make fully rational decisions and should influence how their culpability is viewed in courts of law. The authors critique policies that treat juvenile offenders as adult criminals, asserting that such practices neglect the ongoing development of the adolescent brain, which predisposes youth to impulsivity, susceptibility to peer pressure, and emotional volatility. Their review of neuroscientific studies provides compelling evidence that maturity is a gradual process and that the punitive approaches often employed do not align with adolescents’ developmental stage.
Reflecting on these insights, I find myself aligned with the view that juvenile offenders should be treated with a rehabilitative rather than solely punitive focus, given their neurodevelopmental characteristics. Many juvenile sentences and sanctions seem to ignore the scientific understanding of adolescent development, leading to harsher sentences that may be disproportionate to the offenders' level of maturity. In my own experiences observing juvenile justice practices, it is evident that youth are often held accountable in ways that do not consider their psychological and emotional capacities — a reality that can lead to long-lasting negative effects on their future prospects. Recognizing that adolescence is an inherently transitional period, integrating neuroscience into policy could aid in creating more tailored, developmentally appropriate sanctions that prioritize rehabilitation over punishment.
In their analysis, Cauffman and Steinberg also discuss the shift from rehabilitative to punitive paradigms in juvenile justice. Historically, juvenile systems aimed to rescue and reform young offenders; however, recent policies tend to mirror adult criminal sanctions, often for minor offenses (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2012). The authors caution that such a shift undermines the juvenile system’s purpose and disregards neurodevelopmental evidence, which suggests that adolescents are less culpable and more amenable to intervention. The authors call for reforms grounded in developmental science, emphasizing that policies should aim to preserve the potential for positive development and avoid lifelong stigmatization caused by early punitive measures.
Critically analyzing the work, I appreciate how Cauffman and Steinberg effectively leverage neuroscientific research to challenge existing policies. However, I believe there are additional socio-political factors at play that complicate policy reform, including public perceptions of justice and political interest in strict punitive measures. While science provides a solid foundation for reform, real-world implementation requires overcoming societal biases and systemic inertia. Moreover, there is a need for ongoing assessment of how developmental research informs actual practice, ensuring that juvenile justice professionals are trained to incorporate these insights effectively into their decision-making processes.
My position aligns with the authors’ conclusion that juvenile justice systems should be restructured to reflect the developmental science, emphasizing rehabilitation that is appropriate to adolescents’ cognitive and emotional maturity. This approach not only aligns with principles of fairness and scientific evidence but also offers a more effective means of reducing recidivism and supporting youth development. I believe that adopting a scientifically informed framework will pave the way for more humane, effective policies that recognize adolescents’ potential for change and growth, minimizing the long-term consequences of early punitive sanctions.
References
- Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2012). Emerging findings from research on adolescent development and juvenile justice. Victims & Offenders, 7(4), 429–447.
- Steinberg, L. (2014). Age of Opportunity: Lessons from the New Science of Adolescence. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.