Answer

1. The death penalty, also referred to as capital punishment, is the legal execution of a convicted individual. It is a practice that has been existent since time-immemorial and within the context of the US, it has existed for over 400 years (Gamble, 2016). Some of the methods that have been used in undertaking the procedure include; hanging, public shooting, exposure to poisonous gas, electrocution, and lethal injection. The legality and morality of conducting the aforesaid legal execution has often come under great scrutiny and the debate on whether or not the death penalty should still be used is ongoing. In light of the foregoing, this discussion will provide an analysis of the pros and cons of the death penalty.

   The Pros of the Death Penalty

   One of the fundamental aims of the criminal justice system is to foster deterrence. Through the punishment that is matted on a person who has been convicted of an offence, other individuals who would have potentially committed the same offense are discouraged from engaging in the act since there is no doubt about the consequence that will follow (Gamble, 2016). The aspect of deterrence is effectively achieved through the death penalty. If, for instance, it is known that an individual who commits first degree murder will (upon conviction) be executed, it is foreseeable that a larger percentage of individuals who would have contemplated of engaging in the act will opt not to. When reference is made to the aspect of deterrence, it is apparent that the intent of the death penalty is to foster a more ordered society and to this extent the death penalty is ethical

   When an individual is sentenced to as much as 300 years in prison (which fundamentally means that they are going to spend the rest of their years behind bars) they are tortured and in fact exposed to inhumane treatment (Johnson & McGunigall-Smith, 2008). This is especially so considering the fact that prisons are often overcrowded and the living standards are significantly low. The death penalty is a quick, painless, and humane punishment and to this extent it is ethical.

   The Cons of the Death Penalty

   It has been argued that there is no tangible evidence to prove that the death penalty in fact works as a deterrent (Gamble, 2016). When reference is made to the states in the US that abolished capital punishment, researchers have noted that there has been no substantial change in the rate of commission of serious offences (Gamble, 2016). To the extent that it has been proven that the death penalty does not serve the intent of fostering an ordered society (since its incorporation or lack thereof does not have an impact on the rates of crime) the death penalty is not ethical.

   The death penalty has been known to disproportionately affect the less privileged segments of the society and particularly the racial minorities. Since most of them are not able to afford good legal support, they end up not presenting a good defense. It is important to note in this regard that 50% of prisoners who are on death row are African-Americans (Gamble, 2016). Capital punishment is, therefore, unethical.

   Conclusion

               The debate on the morality of capital punishment is still ongoing. Some of the pros thereof are that; it fosters deterrence and it is a quick, painless, and humane punishment. The cons are that it arguably does not foster deterrence and it disproportionately affects minorities.

   References

   Gamble, J. (2016). Measuring the Effect of Capital Punishment on Murder Deterrence. Issues in Political Economy, 25, 5-41.

   Johnson, R., & McGunigall-Smith, S. (2008). Life without parole, America’s other death penalty: Notes on life under sentence of death by incarceration. The Prison Journal, 88(2), 328-346.

    

   The significance of the work done by prosecutors within the criminal justice system cannot be underestimated. They have in fact been described as the “gatekeepers” of justice within the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is dependent on their initiative since without it there can be no prosecution for crimes. One of the principal roles played by the prosecutors is to present evidence against individuals who have been charged with offences. As a result of the nature of this role, they often operate as if all suspects are guilty. This paper will provide an analysis of the pros and cons of operating as if all suspects are guilty.

   Advantages of Operating as if all Suspects are Guilty

   Within the adversarial system, there are two sides to a case. When an accused person is able to afford good legal representation, his legal counsel will represent all his interests. One of the roles that will be played by counsel in this case is to poke holes on the prosecutor’s case so as to infuse reasonable doubt (Griffin, L., & Yaroshefsky, 2017). To the extent that the interests of the accused person are generously taken care of, coupled with the fact that within the adversarial system the court needs to be presented with both sides of the story, prosecutors are safe to operate as if all suspects are guilty. This is because it aids them in the performance of their role.

   The prosecutor plays the fundamental role of representing the interests of the victims of crime. When they operate as if the suspects are guilty, they become a voice for the victims of crime. Considering the fact that the accused will get legal representation, the prosecutors should speak for the victims of crime.

   Disadvantages of Operating as if all Suspects are Guilty

   One of the reasons prosecutors operate as if all suspects are guilty is because they are keen on carrying out their responsibility to the society at large, as well as, to the victims of crimes (Green & Roiphe, 2019). With respect to their responsibility to the latter group, it is important to note that in most instances, prosecutors are hired by the public to represent the interests of the public, including the victims of crime. To this end, they often forget that they also owe a duty to the persons who have been accused of a crime (Green & Roiphe, 2019). When they choose to operate as if all suspects are guilty, they will not be able to have cognizance for the duty they owe to persons who have been accused of crimes.

   Unlike the private law practitioners, the margin for error with respect to the prosecutor’s duty before court is quite minimal (Griffin, L., & Yaroshefsky, 2017). This is because in most prosecutions, life and liberty is at stake. Many sentences are fundamentally irreversible and irremediable. In most states, the death penalty is still on the table and depending on the representation made by the prosecutor; an accused person may actually be the subject of an execution. If a prosecutor operates as if a suspect is guilty (and does everything to make this presumption clear) and yet the accused person is not able to present a good defense since they are not able to afford a private lawyer, it is plausible that the accused person may in fcat end up being declared guilty even if they were innocent. When prosecutors operate as if all suspects are guilty, a wrongful conviction may be arrived at.

    

   References                  

   Green, B. A., & Roiphe, R. (2019). A Fiduciary Theory of Prosecution. Am. UL Rev., 69, 805.

   Griffin, L., & Yaroshefsky, E. (2017). Ministers of Justice and Mass Incarceration. Geo. J. Legal Ethics, 30, 301.

    

   Once an individual has been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to serve time in prison, they are forced to face the realities of the prison system. The first challenge they have to deal with is that of overpopulation. The rate of incarceration in the US has steadily been increasing. This means that the prison population is relatively high. The convicted individual who is set to serve time will face the challenge of sharing a prison cell with another inmate (Duff, 2005). There is also the constant threat of insecurity from fellow inmates (including rape) and from the practical standpoint; there is little that is done by the prison administration to avert such threats. Some inmates are chained and others are even placed on dog leash (Duff, 2005). Incarceration is essentially attached with exposure to degrading and demeaning treatment. It may even be presumed that the goal of incarceration is to degrade and demean prisoners. This should, however, not be the case. This discussion will provide arguments in support of the position that the goals of the prison system should not include degrading and demeaning prisoners.

               The practice of degrading and demeaning prisoners is substantially unconstitutional and to that extent, it should not be the goal of the prison system. The prison system is part of the criminal justice system and the latter system is founded on constitutionality and the observance of the rule of law. If, therefore, the constitution specifically forbids a practice, there is no legal basis for engaging in the said practice. It is argued that one of the most important constitutional amendments for prisoners is the Eighth Amendment. The amendment forbids the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments” (US Constitution 1776, Eighth Amendment). The resultant interpretation postulates that prisoners should not be exposed to guard brutality and excessive force, as well as, dangerous, unsanitary, and overly restrictive conditions (Duff, 2005). As a result of this amendment, prisoners also have the right to medical care. The unconstitutionality of degrading and demeaning treatment within the prisons has been elaborated in numerous cases including the case of Hudson v McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) where the court noted that when prison officials kicked and punched a prisoner, they acted in violation of the eighth amendment (Hudson v McMillian, 1992).

               Due to many factors (including the need to depopulate the prison population), many prisoners often need to be reincorporated into the society after serving their prison term. When they have been exposed to demeaning and degrading treatment, it does not serve to aid this reincorporation and neither does it motivate them to obey the law (Duff, 2005). It increases the chance of recidivism and the goal of rehabilitation is not achieved. To this extent, degrading and demeaning prisoners should not be the goal of a prison system.

               Once an individual faces incarceration they are faced with the high prospect of experiencing degrading and demeaning treatment. This practice should not be the goal of the prison system since it is not only unconstitutional, but it also defeats the aim of rehabilitation.

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

   References

   Duff, R. A. (2005). Punishment, dignity and degradation.

   Hudson v McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992).

   US Constitution 1776.

    

   America is known as one of the most progressive civilizations in the world and this is particularly so because of respect for democracy and the rule of law. The system of checks and balances ensures that no arm of government is able to usurp power to the detriment of the people. Despite the fact that American institutions (especially those within the realm of the criminal justice system) respect the rule of law, there are various negative elements that do not hold this principle. This is observable by reference to the extra-judicial killings that have been reported in recent times. State actors have continually committed homicides without following the due process of the law. As a result of the extent to which this crime is being committed presently, it is the most pressing issue in criminal justice today and it unequivocally highlights the need for ethical behavior.

   Media reporting of illegal shootings of unarmed civilians by police officers has been on the increase within the past two years, with the recent one being the killing of George Floyd. In the process of his arrest, Floyd had effectively been restrained and instead of being taken to the police station, one of the police officers who were effecting his arrest chocked him to death by kneeling on his neck. Floyd’s case is one among numerous other cases where unarmed individuals (especially those hailing from minority communities) were killed by the police (Weine et al., 2010). Based on data provided by Statista (covering between 2015 up to 2020) it is apparent that rogue officers are three times more likely to engage in the extrajudicial killing of an African-American as compared to a Caucasians (statista, 2020).  To a substantial extent, law enforcement officials set the standard for what is acceptable within the society (Sommer & Asal, 2019). They are the ones who are charged with the task of protecting civilians and ensuring that individuals operate in compliance with the law. When they engage in this vice, they are essentially indicating that it is acceptable to discriminate in this manner. The issue of extrajudicial killings, therefore, unequivocally highlights the need for ethical behavior.

   The change that needs to be made is that officers who engage in the vice ought to be subjected to criminal sanctions that are proportionate to their crime. In the case of George Floyd, it is apparent that the officer engaged in first-degree murder. First-degree murder is often difficult to prove because there is need to provide evidence to the effect that the defendant actually had the intention of killing (premeditated). When reference is, however, made to the video recording of Floyd’s murder, there is minimal room for arguments against the charge of first-degree murder. The suspect had effectively been restrained and the officer knelt on the suspect’s neck for a relatively long period of time. He was instead charged with second and third-degree murder. This does not provide the element of deterrence. It is imperative that officers are subjected to criminal sanctions that are proportionate to their crime.

   The most pressing issue in criminal justice today is extra-judicial killings. The change that needs to be implemented so as to make the issue less of a concern is the subjection of officers to criminal sanctions that are proportionate to their crime.

    

    

    

    

    

   References

   Sommer, U., & Asal, V. (2019). Examining extrajudicial killings: discriminant analyses of human rights’ violations. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 12(3), 185-207.

   Statista.com. “Rate of fatal police shootings in the United States from 2015 to September 2020, by ethnicity.” Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings-rate-ethnicity-us/ 

   Weine, S., Kohrt, B. A., Collins, P. Y., Cooper, J., Lewis-Fernandez, R., Okpaku, S., & Wainberg, M. L. (2020). Justice for George Floyd and a reckoning for global mental health. Global Mental Health, 7.

Answer

Training Needs Assessment

Introduction

Training and development are very instrumental, especially in the current operational context of most organizations that are endeavoring to enhance optimal throughput from the entire resourceful areas of the organization. Training improves employees’ expertise; it gives room and space for ascertaining key crucial extents of employees’ development (Towler, et al. 2014). In order to establish whether employees have the reading level necessary to succeed in a training program, I would employ various techniques as discussed in the following section.

First, I will conduct formal interviews and tests that call for reading abilities, experience, and skills. In specific, I would carry out written interviews and tests for the employees at the workplace that would incorporate excerpts that best suits the employees’ reading level for them to read and respond to its related questions. This excerpt, for example, will be based on the objectives of the training, the content, and prior practice settings. This training need evaluation would help to identify employees’ reading behavior and the gaps to be addressed in the training program, which in return would benefit the organization and employees from new training prospects (Gupta, 2011). This will enable me to identify what employees need to know in so far as technical or communication knowledge is concerned, and what they are capable to do in terms of mental or manual skills to realize the intended results and the disposition to execute their roles (attitude). However, it should be noted that, the ability of employees to understand what they read does not resonate with their reading level (Cain, 2011).

Furthermore, I would employ an employee performance appraisal interview to identify previous and contemporary performance to find out an area that needs action (Franco-Santos, Lucianetti, & Bourne, 2012). All these are written documents or material that need to be read and interpreted, hence will help in assessing the reading level essential to thrive in a training program.

On the other hand, I would use self-assessments, surveys (Garvin, Edmondson, Gino, 2008), and questionnaires. These are all techniques with a regular written format that call for reading. They can be structured based on the attitude of employees, employees’ job content, the standards of employee performance in line with efficiency and outcome, or on the expertise required to execute the roles of the job proficiently (Verrell, McCabe, 2015). In this analysis, I would be able to establish the reading level based on how they respond to the questionnaires and the way and the degree they use to evaluate themselves.

Lastly, I would employ focus group discussions which provide an open atmosphere for employees to engage in open written questions on various training requirements as I listen to the way they read and articulate their points out. I would ensure that the topics for discussion are all written, and they should be read within a given period of time before being discussed. This helps in knowing the reading level. Additionally, I would employ desk studies for employees on the organizational documents and the analysis of the records which uses secondary information to help in the identification of training needs (Garvin, Edmondson, Gino, 2008). Employees would be required to give their report which will help me establish their reading level essential to thrive in a training program.

.