'My Sociology Paper Essay\r'

' straightaway’s generation is equipped with highly groundbreaking and sophisticated technology that argon very utilitarian in many ways particularly in keeping and obtaining information. The internet serves not only when as stock files of information but as well as for mercenary advertisement, and for publication of completely sorts of both scholarly and unsatisfying denominations as well as dyed and non- crooked number of writings. This sort of complexity however, gives as a entire range of option and choices as to what one int abates to do. For those who try quality information scholarly and journal denominations provides a strong references.\r\nThe only thing that needs to do is survey the source whether its content argon scholarly. In view of these, this paper bequeath attempt to evaluate the articles listed above whether they are biased or non-biased sources by discussing the main issues raised by these sources. At the end the paper will conclude whether th ese sources are biased or not, based on the careful abridgment of the content of each of these articles. Discussion of the articles In the archetypal article, the main issue is the mandatary stripped conviction imposed on persons convicted of possessing half a kilo of cocaine powder or more to at least five years imprisonment.\r\nThe authors cited that this mandatory minimum have a strong bipartisan have from elected representatives and even from presidential candidates. sequence in that location are pros and cons in this issue, in view of the authors the mandatory minimum sentence can be viewed as means of attaining the country’s medicine concur accusives (Caulkins, J. P. ; Rydell, P. ; Schwabe, W. L. ; & Chiesa, J. 1997, par. 3). Controlling medicine use in the country could be a welcome objective as often times; guns and violence are linked with do drugs use.\r\nAccording to Scott Newark in his article entitle â€Å"The 2006 shame Stats Analysis- Time fo r the Truth” drugs manage cocaine, heroin, and crystal meth are astoundingly 21% up over the past five years (Newark, par. 17). While the authors discussed and considered early(a) available alternatives on easing drug problems, their opinion were centered on reducing drug consumption rather than its impact on the society. Thus, they rove more emphasis on treating life-threatening users than on the un fair playful offenses associated with the use of illegal drugs.\r\nThe Second Article, pen by Steven Levitt, primarily deals with the winnow out of abuses in the States. Levitt pointed come out that man almost experts are predicting an explosion of wickedness during the early and middle of the 1990s, wickedness rates plunged hardly at this expected period and authorities were not anticipating it to decease. Levitt refused to attribute this worsen to the popular perceptions like increase imprisonment, tougher gun control laws, strong economy, and so forth. Levitt w as not surprised by this turn of events rather he questioned why the declination of reprehensibleity did not happen earlier. (p. 164).\r\nAccording to Levitt, what is remarkable with the even out of crimes in the ground forces during this period was it magnitude from the 1950 to 2001. Of all the evil offenses, Levitt determine homicide as the most serious crime that had undergo the biggest complete between 1991 and 2000, from 9. 8 to 5. 5 or a drop of forty-four percent. While Levitt focus in his article was to identify the veridical causes of the line of criminal offenses in the US during the period from 1991 to 2001, he seemed to have to fail to categorically identify the real causes of such decline.\r\nInstead he shifted his emphasis on the remarkable aspect of this decline. He noted that this decline appeared unusual compared with other countries in the world, in which most of the most common criminal offenses such as homicide, robbery, and burglary experienced sharp d ecline from 1991 to 2000. The author also discussed the universality of this drop in crime citing decline in each subgroups for all crime categories (p. 167).\r\nHowever, at the end of the article, the author recognizes six factors namely, the strong economy, the changing demographics, better policing strategies, gun control laws, laws allowing the carrying of cancelled weapons, and change magnitude of capital punishment that according to Levitt, played teensy-weensy or no role in the crime drop. He also acknowledge the four factors that explained the decline of crime such as the increase in number of police, the rising prison population, the receding stigma epidemic and the legalization of abortion.\r\nThe last article, by Scott Newark, deals with crime statistics which was accordingly â€Å"disappointing without critical analysis by the media” (par. 3). Contrary to the article by Steven Levitt, Newark’s offence Stat Analysis reveals the other side of police reco rds of criminal offenses. While Newark was talking of the crime rates in Canada, he noted indirectly that recorded crimes are only the most serious ones suggesting that there are more crimes unreported, aside from those that were not recorded by the statistic gatherer.\r\nThis means that Levitt’s account of crime drop in the unify States is clouded with doubts, indeed, according to the United States iniquity Rates 1960-2007, in 2000 United States was class-conscious as â€Å"22nd having highest Criminal Index” (United States villainy Rates). From the way it looks, Newark’s article was a true(p) assessment of the earthly concern of criminal offenses and offenders. He exclamatory that it is unrealistic to spend billions of dollars with the rehabilitation of serious offenders who when released, will commit the same crime again. Conclusion\r\nThe triple articles discussed in this paper provided basic ideas about criminal offenses. Although the paper did not give a trenchant stand in each of the articles discussed, it leaves the paper a debatable issue regarding the seemingly contradicting views between the reality of crimes and offenses in Canada and the United States as revealed by Levitt and Newark respectively. However, while the three authors have different views and emphasized on different aspects of criminal offenses, it was clear that their common objective is to shed light on issues that they deemed needed to be pointed out to the public.\r\nQuality of Sources The first article entitle Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences: Throwing out the recognise or the Taxpayers’ Money by Jonathan P. Caulkins, C. Peter Rydell. William L. Schwabe and crowd Chiesa, was biased in the sense that the authors appeared to one sided in their opinion. They seemed to focus merely on reducing drug consumption without giving due consideration to the tax write-off of drug related offenses. This seemed to promote sympathy of the heavy user, rath er on the consequence of violating the law.\r\nThis is quite equal to tolerating the use of illegal drugs and then rehabilitates the users later on. The countenance article, Understanding Why evil Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that rationalize the Deadline and Six that Do not by Steven Levitt is not biased article in view of its critical and balanced debut of facts and evidences. Although The article appeared surprising given the sharp decline of crimes in the US amidst the proliferation drugs in the inner cities of America as cited in an internet article entitled â€Å"Operation SOS.\r\n” The article noted the proliferation of drugs in the city causing violent crimes in the neighborhood (Operation SOS) yet the author was able to shed lights on all sides affecting the issues being discussed. The third article The 2006 Crime Stats Analysis-Time for the Truth by Scott Newark is also not biased article on the ground that this source was a realistic point of view. With o ut pretense, the author reveals the other side of the crime statistics release by law enforcers which in view of the author, is often selective and statistic gatherer are watering down their statistics to include only the most serious offense.\r\nThe source is not bias because the writer was very objective and open given(p) in perception of the realities behind the law enforcements records of criminal offenses.\r\nReferences Caulkins, J. ; Rydell, P. ; Schwabe, W. L. & Chiesa, J. Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences: Throwing Away the Key or the Taxpayers Moneyhttp://www. fathom. com/media/PDF/2172_ss. pdf Levitt, S. (2004) â€Å"Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Deadline and Six that Do not” Journal Of stinting Perspectivesâ€Vlume 18,Number1http://pricetheory.uchicago. edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004. pdf Newark, S.\r\nThe 2006 Crime Stat Analysis- Time for the Truth patriarchal Time Crime July 23, 2007http://www. primetimecrime. com/contributing/2007/20070723newark. htm United States Crime rates 1960 †200 http://www. disastercenter. com/crime/uscrime. htm â€Å"The Operation SOS” function of Citizen Services City of Buffalo 2001- 2008http://www. ci. buffalo. ny. us/ mansion/City_Departments/Special_Programs_and_Agencies/Save_Our_Streets/OperationSOS\r\n'