Criminology Midterm free essay sample

Anytown’s Department of Job and Family Services’ implemented a new policy stating that â€Å"any household that has one or more documented offense of domestic violence, child abuse, or drug or alcohol related offenses committed by the mother, father, guardian, and/or caregiver, will result in the removal of any child or children from the home. In addition to the removal of a child, â€Å"the child will be placed in the care of the state, or foster care services, until documentation can prove that the offender has undergone any or all of the following, and has thus been â€Å"offense free† for a period of no less than six months: alcohol and /or drug treatment, counseling, family therapy sessions, mental health treatment, anger management, life skills classes, and/or parenting classes. † I have to say that I strongly oppose the majority of the policy. Firstly, I see many ethical and moral dilemmas. Secondly, I believe this policy will have an immediate negative impact on the children, as well as an ultimately destructive effect on criminality in the future. Lastly, while I do feel that the Department of Job and Family Services interpreted the social learning theory properly, I do not feel, however, that they applied it properly when implementing the policy. I question this policy for that a number of moral and ethical issues come to mind when I think of this new policy. This policy seems to be that of one that too quickly jumps to conclusions as well as judgments.Which brings up questions such as who determines that a child is in danger? What constitutes endangerment in the government’s eyes? How is it decided that the state is better suited to raise my child? Someone has to inform the state that an issue exists within a household. Sometimes it is a police officer that responded to a dispute. Sometimes it’s a concerned neighbor. Other times it’s another family member or friend of the family. The point I’m getting at is that while many times there is real danger, a lot of times it is a simple case of misunderstanding or even a false claim.The case should be well investigated before a decision to remove a child is made. I do not think I have enough faith in the ability of the Department of Jobs and Family Services to thoroughly investigate an issue for me to be open to the new policy. This policy, in my opinion, is intrusive and allows the government to insinuate itself into a citizen’s life, home, and family. Americans embrace their freedoms and rights from fear of oppression from the government. This means that American people should not have to be afraid that the government will take a child away from his/her family, because of one infraction or mistake.In my opinion, one offe`nse does not seem substantial enough evidence in deciding that a child should be ripped away from his/her family. There are many occasions when a nosey neighbor perceives something they saw as abuse or neglect, when in reality it was not. In criminal cases, citizens have the right to due process, as well as the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. I do not see a fair system here. Are the people who are deciding the fate of a child and family really qualified enough to make such a momentous decision?If the government decides that they can raise your child better than you, then where does it end? The idea borders too much on the side of a totalitarianism government. Another issue I have with this policy is that one of the â€Å"offenses† refers to that of alcohol. Alcohol is legal. So tell me how the government can decide to take someone’s child away for something that it deems legal. It is a much bigger pill to swallow for average citizens, when a contradiction such as this exists in any new policy.It’s like telling someone to look but not touch, touch but do not taste, taste but do not swallow, swallow but do not enjoy. I do agree that alcohol abuse is an endangerment in a household. I just do not agree with using something that is legal as a justification for such an audacious policy. Any policy such as this one will always have an impact on children and their families as well as the criminality of the country; whether it is immediate or eventual. It is my opinion that, for the most part, foster care is actually regressive rather than progressive. According to a 2007 study done by MIT’s Joseph Doyle Jr. which looked at outcomes for more than 15,000 children and compared foster children not to the general population but to comparably-maltreated children left in their own homes, the evidence suggested that the children left in their own homes tend to do better. The study showed that â€Å"children left in their own homes are far less likely to become pregnant as teenagers, far less likely to wind up in the juvenile justice system, and far more likely to hold a job for at least three months than comparably maltreated children who were placed in foster care† (Veloso, 2009).Doyle published yet another study the next year. This time he compared 23,000 cases, again foster children to comparably maltreated children left with their families, but looked at which children would be more likely to be arrested as adults. The study again showed that the children left with their families were better off. The children placed in foster care were significantly more likely to become involved in criminal activities as adults. To me, this study shows not only how ineffective foster care is but also how damaging it is. The potential trouble caused by the foster care system begins at home.By removing the child from his/her family, the state is uprooting all that the child knows; away from friends, school, church, any other family, if he/she has any left, etc. Then who does that child have left? There are many times when removal of a child and placement into foster care is very necessary. However, foster care is necessary only in the event that the child is in imminent danger and all other options have been exhausted. If studies show that foster care is actually worse than life at home, would it not be more pertinent to keep the family together to try and work things out?After removing the child from his/her family, the new policy suggests that the children stay in state custody until the pa rents â€Å"prove that (they) have undergone any or all of the following, and has thus been â€Å"offense free† for a period of no less than six months: alcohol and/or drug treatment, counseling, family therapy sessions, mental health treatment, anger management, life skills classes, and/or parenting classes. † I fully agree that parents should complete these programs. However, I believe that the family as a whole should complete these programs together, not as separate individuals.I firmly believe that a problem should be worked on from the inside out, not the outside in. Anytown’s policy to use foster care as a first resort takes away the family’s chance to do so, which in turn takes away their ability to heal as a family. Another thing I fear is that this policy has the potential to actually increase the crime rate. The research I’ve done shows that putting a child into the foster care system could actually increase his/her chance of becoming involved in crime. In terms of crime, it’s like trading in a knife for a gun. Based on the studies performed by Doyle, implementing a policy that increases the use of foster care could produce a greater population of young offenders. This, in turn, would create a vicious cycle of creating generations with more and more criminals. The children placed into the foster care system, will one day grow to be adults, many more than previous becoming involved in crime. These criminalistics adults that were raised in the system will produce children of their own. Due to the new policy, the children of these criminals, who are a product of the policy, will likely be placed into foster care as well.Thus, repeating the cycle. Increasing the use of the removal of children, in my opinion, only increases the number potential criminals. If it is true that children learn abuse from their environment, and studies show that foster care is a worse environment, why increase its usage? Anytown cites the social learning theory as their basis for implementing this one offense/zero-tolerance type policy. â€Å"Social learning theorists argue that people are not born with the ability to act violently; rather, they learn to be aggressive through their life experiences† (Siegel, 2007, p. 21). In my opinion, the Department of Job and Family Services interpreted the theory properly. It is very possible that children are a product of their environment. Under the social learning theory, â€Å"people learn to act aggressively when, as children, they model their behavior after the violent acts of adults. Later in life, these violent behavior patterns persist in social relationships† (Siegel, 2007, p. 121).As said earlier, foster care should not be the first response to a problem at home, for it does not give families a chance to work issues out and the increase of its use would create an influx of potential criminals. If the social learning theory is correct, Anytown was right to suggest that something needed to be done. However, their policy is way off base in its goal to indeed do something. Their policy is counterproductive and actually produces an outcome that is contradictory to their overall goal.Just because a theory suggests that a child has a greater potential of becoming involved in crime when maltreated, just simply removing that child is not going to work. Not to say that there are not cases when a child should be removed for his/her own safety, but Anytown’s policy seems to want to focus more on preventing children from becoming criminals rather than their safety. In my opinion, Anytown should focus more on helping the family. That is to say that I think that they should help fix the environment that the child is in, for the social learning theory does suggest that it is the environment that is the cause.My point is that a different, and potentially worse, environment is not necessarily the answer. If studies show that families that stay together are better off, then attempts to fix the family while keeping them together should be the answer. In review, Anytown, U. S. A. ’s Department of Job and Family Services, citing the social learning theory as their basis and over concerns about child endangerment issues, implemented a new policy stating that â€Å"Any household that has one or more documented offense of domestic violence, child abuse, or drug or alcohol related offenses committed by the mother, father, uardian, and/or caregiver, will result in the removal of any child or children from the home. † I personally find many moral and ethical issues with this policy, such as the intrusive and unforgiving nature of the â€Å"zero-tolerance† style it comes with. Certain situations are just misunderstandings. In my opinion, the policy seems to judge to quickly and the tearing apart of a family should be taken seriously. I feel a parent should have more of a right to fight to keep his/her child than to keep him/herself out of jail. The Department of Job and Family Services isn’t exactly a court of law either.Not to mention th e fact that the state is more concerned with taking a child away from his/her family in an attempt to reduce future crime, based on the idea that a child is a product of his/her environment. On the contrary though, studies show that children placed in foster care are actually more likely to become involved in crime than children that are comparably maltreated and stay with their families. While I do agree with the Department of Job and Family Services plan to implement such things as parenting classes, family therapy, and alcohol drug rehabilitation, I disagree that the removal of the child is necessary.The family should attempt to heal together and all other options exhausted before foster care should be considered. Finally, regarding the policy being based on the social learning theory, the DJFS is right in its interpretation of the theory, just wrong in applying it to the policy. Overall, I do not agree with Anytown’s attempt to reform child endangerment issues.