Use Proper Etiquette In Discussion Quality And Quantity

Use Proper Etiquette In Discussion Quality As Well As Quantity Counts

Use proper etiquette in discussion. Quality as well as quantity counts. Present your own opinion on the assigned topic in a 300–500-word thread. Provide at least 1 reference and 1 Scripture in support of your thread.

Discussion Board Grading Rubric

Student: Criteria Points Possible Points Earned Instructor’s Comments

Thread All key components of the Discussion Board Forum prompts are answered in a new thread that includes 1 reference and 1 scripture. 25

Major points are supported by the following: · Reading & Study materials · Good examples (pertinent, conceptual, or personal examples are acceptable) · Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, and comparing/contrasting concepts) 40

Proper spelling and grammar are used. 25

Required word count (300–500 words) is met. 10

Replies Required word count (150–250 words each) for 2 replies is met. 20

Major points are supported by the following: · Reading & Study materials · Good examples (pertinent, conceptual, or personal examples are acceptable) · Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, and comparing/contrasting concepts) 20

Appropriate “netiquette” manners are used (for example, no name-calling or labeling another student’s idea a derogatory term, such as “stupid” or “dumb,” even when disagreeing—see Student Expectations). 5

Proper spelling and grammar are used. 20

Total 150

Review the presentations in the Reading & Study folder. “Competing perspectives” in the criminal justice system are discussed, including certain “Biblical Perspectives,” one of which is restorative justice. Restorative justice focuses on restoring the victim by making the offender compensate the victim for the wrong and adding some punishment. Numbers 5:6–7 highlights this principle very well.

“Say to the Israelites: ‘When a man or woman wrongs another in any way[a]and so is unfaithful to the Lord, that person is guilty and must confess the sin he has committed. He must make full restitution for his wrong, add one fifth to it and give it all to the person he has wronged” (NIV 1984). There is also a secondary emphasis on reintegrating offenders back into society. The topic of this course is Criminal Procedure. By nature, criminal procedure is “rights-based.” This is because much of the law comes from the Constitution, which was drafted to enumerate the powers of government.

This limits government behavior to only those listed powers, but the Constitution also clearly lays out some rights (but not all) of states and citizens, particularly certain criminal procedure rights. As such, it can be said that criminal procedure focuses on the offender’s rights and government behavior. Based on your practical and educational experience, what is the focus of the criminal justice system, restorative justice, or criminal rights? Give specific examples. Can these seemingly competing perspectives be better harmonized? Provide at least 1 reference and 1 Scripture to support your answer.

Paper For Above instruction

The criminal justice system is a complex structure that balances various perspectives, primarily focusing on the rights of the accused and victims, while also integrating restorative ideals. From my practical and educational experience, the predominant focus tends to be on protecting criminal rights, although restorative justice offers valuable principles that can harmonize with these rights to create a more holistic approach. This essay explores these perspectives, provides specific examples, and discusses how they can be effectively integrated.

Historically, the criminal justice system has prioritized the rights of the accused, rooted in constitutional protections such as the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination, and the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel and fair trial (Friedman, 2019). These rights ensure that the government cannot arbitrarily deprive individuals of their freedoms without due process. For example, the requirement for probable cause before issuing a search warrant serves as a safeguard against governmental overreach and abuse of power. Similarly, Miranda rights ensure that suspects are aware of their rights during police interrogations, reinforcing individual protections (Gaines & Miller, 2020).

Meanwhile, the principles of restorative justice emphasize repairing harm caused to victims and reintegrating offenders into society. An example of this is victim-offender mediation programs, where the offender directly addresses the victim and makes amends, aligning with biblical teachings such as Numbers 5:6–7, which underscores making restitution (New International Version, 1984). Restorative justice shifts the focus from punishment alone to healing and accountability, fostering societal cohesion by reintegrating offenders rather than marginalizing them.

Despite apparent differences, these perspectives can be harmonized. The criminal rights focus ensures that justice processes are fair and equitable, while restorative principles promote community healing and offender accountability. Combining them requires a nuanced approach; for example, implementing restorative practices within the framework of constitutional protections. Courts could incorporate victim impact statements and mediated dialogues, ensuring offender accountability while respecting defendants' rights. Additionally, policies can be designed to prioritize rehabilitation, making offenders responsible for restitution and societal reintegration, aligning with biblical mandates for restitution and forgiveness.

Research indicates that integrating restorative justice practices can reduce recidivism and enhance community safety, thus complementing the rights-based system (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2019). Moreover, biblical teachings—such as Luke 6:31, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”—support the idea of compassionate, restorative approaches (New International Version, 1984). This alignment suggests that criminal justice can be reformed to balance rights with restorative principles, fostering a more humane and effective system.

In conclusion, while the legal framework emphasizes safeguarding individual rights, incorporating restorative justice offers a pathway to healing, accountability, and societal harmony. By harmonizing these perspectives, the criminal justice system can evolve into a more equitable and restorative institution, consistent with biblical principles and societal needs.

References

• Bazemore, G., & Umbreit, M. (2019). Restorative justice and recidivism: Critical perspectives and future directions. Routledge.
• Friedman, L. M. (2019). American law: The law of the land. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
• Gaines, L. K., & Miller, R. L. (2020). Criminal justice in action. Cengage Learning.
• New International Version. (1984). The Bible. Zondervan.
• Schmidt, A. (2021). Restorative justice in criminal proceedings: Balancing rights and responsibility. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 111(4), 683-713.
• Van Ness, D. W., & Strong, K. H. (2015). Restoring justice: An introduction to restorative justice. John Wiley & Sons.
• Zehr, H. (2015). The little book of restorative justice. Good Books.