Our papers are 100% unique and written following academic standards and provided requirements. Get perfect grades by consistently using our writing services. Place your order and get a quality paper today. Rely on us and be on schedule! With our help, you'll never have to worry about deadlines again. Take advantage of our current 20% discount by using the coupon code GET20
Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper
PLEASE make sure you separate each question with a line underneath so I want get them mixed up thanks (NO FORMATTING IS NECESSARY JUST INCLUDE PROPER CITATIONS AND REFERENCES THANKS) (Originality is not necessary either I will rewrite everything anyways just answer the questions however you feel copy and pasted if you the answer elsewhere, or original it does nt matter just answer them accurately thanks
150+ WORDS TOTAL
Question 1: Lying Under Oath
Testifying in court is an important role of an investigator. It has been argued that in the current era there is an incentive for police officers to be untruthful under oath; others have argued that this is a misrepresentation of officers’ actual behavior. Find an article about police officers providing false testimony, such as the article “Why Police Lie Under Oath” published in the New York Times. Then search for an opposing viewpoint, such as the rebuttal “Do Police Officers Lie?” on PoliceOne.com. In your discussion post, first briefly summarize the articles you have read. Which point of view do you find more compelling, and why? ______________________________________________________________________________
150+ WORDS TOTAL
Question 2: Evaluation Research and Problem Analysis
Robert Martinson was an American sociologist who conducted well-known evaluation research on the shortcomings of prisoner rehabilitation programs. His findings became known as the “Nothing Works” doctrine. Use the web to conduct research on Martinson and the “Nothing Works” doctrine, as well as responses to it. Then address the following:
- What were the research methods used by Martinson and his team? Do you believe that this was a well-designed study? Why or why not?
- In your opinion, might issues in the research design have contributed to the conclusion that “nothing works”? (Hint: you may wish to bring in the ideas of process evaluations and impact assessments.)
- If this evaluation was done today, what would you change, and why? ________________________________________________________________________
Question 3: Terrorism
Terrorism can take two forms: domestic or international. Probably the most famous incident of domestic terrorism in the United States was the 1995 bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. And the attacks of September 11, 2001, will likely never be forgotten as one of the most devastating international terrorist incidents ever. In this assignment, you will choose one of these forms of terrorism and discuss why you feel it is the most serious threat and why. Consider the first three steps of the Criminal Justice Decision Making Model:
- Step One: Define the problem (and the questions that need to be answered): Read the material on Classification of Terrorist Acts, Terrorism in the United States, Terrorists as Criminals, and Investigating Possible Terrorist Activities. Pay particular attention to the domestic groups and international groups that are named in the chapter. Assess which threat is the most serious and why. What motivates the group you are highlighting? What methods of terrorism are used? What are the best strategies for investigating the form of terrorism you chose and why?
- Step Two: Gather evidence (law, policy, procedure, data) and evaluate for relevancy: Gather data on the prevalence of domestic and international terrorism, the group that you consider the most serious threat, and laws that can be used to combat this group.
- Step Three: Weigh moral considerations and direct/indirect consequences: Have our terrorism laws gone too far in eroding our personal rights? Not far enough? Discuss the balance between terrorism enforcement and personal liberties.