Prison Food Essay Example for Free

Prison Food Essay According to Faulkner (136-137), the need for correctional institutions to rehabilitate offenders has been highlighted by the increasing cost of operations as well as recidivism statistics indicating that majority of offenders escalate in crimes committed and the lack of social participation or integration released offers are able to attain upon release (Hepburn Griffin, 57-59). This perspective suggests that rehabilitation is linked to offenders’ productive and social potential. At the same time, Holmes (9) believes that the relationships and competencies developed by the offender during incarceration can serve as foundation for social reintegration and long-term rehabilitation. Thus many correctional facilities such as the Northeastern Correctional Center, have undertaken programs that are designed to better equip offenders upon their release by engaging them in the institutions’ kitchen crew (Terris). Their objective is not only educating inmates in the food trade industry for possible employment but also to reinforce social bonds and self-development (Hepburn Griffin, 63-66). Background Terris points out that the programs is neither novel nor unique to the Northeastern Correctional Center. However, unlike general kitchen duties, inmates mentored in the institution’s Fife and Drum restaurant based on methods from the Culinary Institute of America by its head chef Eddie Jacobs. When the program started in 1983, the objective was to educate participants in the preparation of economical meals but since then has evolved into popular and even fine dining cuisine. Furthermore, according to the program’s managers, participation in the program provides participants practical and commercial skills that have stable demand and daily applications. The program has had achieved success both from the perspective of prison administrators and inmates. According to the former, the programs do not only engage significantly the interest of participating inmates but has also been enhancing the responsiveness and participation of non-participating inmates in existing programs. Terris also relates insights from participating inmate Idris Forde: Forde believes that his in working in the Fife according to â€Å"real world† scenarios reinforces the value of work as well as their role in the operation of an enterprise and in turn, their ability to become productive and benefits not only the Northeastern Correctional Center but also all other stakeholders of the institution. Evaluation According to Currie (185-187), studies of repeat offenders, return to criminal behavior is inversely related to the level of social integration and productivity upon reentry to society. Thus, establishment of programs enhancing inmates’ competency, productivity and social participation have the potential of decreasing the risks of recidivism. This opinion is also supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Their research indicated that the use of social reinforcement, whether in the form of social exclusion, direct support or mentoring and competencies or skills development, decreases susceptibility to criminal behavior by increasing the personal and social risks of re-incarceration. There is no doubt that there has been greater realization of the role of correctional facilities in rehabilitation, which in contemporary perspectives implies successful reintegration and limiting recidivism. However, it should also be noted that undertaking such a program has also significant challenges. In the case of the Northeastern Correctional Center, their relatively small population and their prison classification, allow for better margins for such programs. In the case of high-risk facilities which may be in lockdown except for a few hours a day, implementing the program is unlikely. Furthermore, the availability of instructors or mentors for the programs is also a consideration. Moreover, prison programs and objectives have to be evaluated if they are consistent with such perspectives. Otherwise, such penal reforms can not be effectively applied or implemented as an operational directive for correctional institutions. Recommendations One of the first tasks to establish the significance of the success of the Fife program is to compare its level of success to similar programs in other correctional or rehabilitation facilities. A range to determine the degree of effectiveness has to also be established to map the competency or effectiveness of the programs. The next task is to identify the common components or strategies of the best programs which can then be utilized to compose requirements for programs that are to be developed. Regardless of the content, there should be sensitivity towards the constraints of implementation based on prison population, modality of offenses and psychiatric evaluation. Ironically, there should also be realization that despite the level of input or statistical relevance of programs outlines or requirements, there is still a need for frequent sensitivity analyses to accommodate the variety of stakeholders and degree public concern afforded such initiatives. In conclusion, despite the level of success that the Northeastern Correctional Center has achieved in its kitchen program, there is still a need to evaluate its long term effectiveness and level application efficiency to determine the critical components for wider application and implementation.

Free Essays - Psychological Analysis of Hawthornes Young Goodman Brown :: Free Essay Writer

Psychological Analysis of Young Goodman Brown Most of the works can be analyzed by one of the three critical approaches: traditional, formalistic or psychological approach. When it comes to Young Goodman Brown (by Nathaniel Hawthorne), I think that psychological approach is the best one to use. The story is all about the three components of our unconscious (id, ego and superego) and the constant battle among them. It is true that psychological approach has its flaws. It was criticized unjustly for those flaws. The greatest limitation lies in its "aesthetic inadequacy." It also suffered because many critics of this approach tend to push their thesis overboard. However, the other two approaches have inadequacies of their own. The formalistic disregards the sociological and historical aspects of the related work. The traditional neglects the structure of the work itself. We could easily use the historical and the moral approaches, but we cannot get inside of the story and analyze it. Young Goodman Brown is a perfect character for the psychological approach. One can examine his mind and the three components of the unconscious. All three of those are represented in the story. Id is the one that stands out. In the beginning, Brown's id wins a battle over ego and superego when Young Goodman Brown decides to leave his wife Faith in order to meet the Devil. Even though he fears his actions, Goodman Brown goes along with his plan. He wants to fulfill his inner desires (or as Freud calls it: the pleasure principle) no matter what. It is interesting that Freud identifies the id with the Devil himself. Hawthorne uses Young Goodman Brown who is driven by his id to get to the Devil. Once Brown encounters the Devil in the forest, he starts to get to his senses. The psychological approach analyzes this occurrence as the emergence of the latent unconscious (Freud calls is the preconscious). I was shocked when I read that Goodman Brown resembles the Devil. "In truth, all through the haunted forest there could be nothing more frightful than the figure of Goodman Brown. On he flew among the black pines, brandishing his staff with frenzied gestures, now giving vent to an inspiration of horrid blasphemy, and now shouting forth such laughter as set all the echoes of the forest laughing like demons around him.

Descartes Free Will Essay

In Meditations on First Philosophy Descartes attempts to explain the cause of errors in human beings. Descartes says that error occurs â€Å"since the will extends further than the intellect† (Descartes p. 39). That’s because our intellect is something that is finite; it is limited to the perception of only certain things. Whereas our will, ability to choose is not limited; it is has an infinite capacity. Therefore we sometimes attempt to will things which we do not have a complete understanding of. Descartes’ argument, as I will briefly describe, is quite sound, if you agree to all his conditions (being that the intellect is limited and the will infinite). I am not, as of yet, sure if I necessarily agree to the later of his two conditions. I will strive to evaluate different discernments of what will is, and if it is truly free. Then apply it to his argument. But first let me explain Descartes’ argument on the causation of errors. Descartes’ discussion begins in saying that â€Å"errors depend on the simultaneous concurrence of two causes: the faculty of knowing that is in me and the faculty of choosing† (Descartes p. 38). I will first tackle the faculty of knowing, or intellect. Descartes says that it merely perceives and understands ideas, which can later have judgment passed on them (see Descartes p. 38). The intellect is limited and finite because it can occur in different degrees. While some people have a simple understanding of a language others have a mastery of its grammar and syntax. But no one can have a mastery of all the mysteries of the universe. Then there is the faculty of choosing, as Descartes calls it, or rather the will. Descartes says that he â€Å"experience[s] that it is limited by no boundaries whatever† (Descartes p. 38). It is seen as infinite because unlike the intellect is does to adhere to different grades. It exists merely as a matter of being able to do or not to do something; to affirm or deny something proposed by one’s intellect (see Descartes p. 38). In some cases one’s will is unable to make such a decision, Descartes says, not because of a fault in the will but rather because the intellect is lacking complete knowledge of the situation (see Descartes p. 39). It is here that one should be indifferent to passing judgment. If in such a instance indifference is not the outcome an error is most likely to occur. Descartes says that this error will occur only when both work together because alone they cannot produce error. That’s because intellect, in and of itself, only perceives ideas which one knows and error would only occur if one tried to perceive ideas he did not know, which is impossible. The other, the will, in that it acts of itself, is only a utility of choice which alone cannot error. Therefore error and sin occur when both intellect and will work with each other. It is the disproportion between the limit of the will and the intellect that causes blunders. The will, as I’ve stated, is a limitless aspect of ourselves and therefore can pass judgment on any proposition brought forth. But the intellect can only clearly perceive and understand very few propositions. As Descartes says it is where I â€Å"extend it (the will) to things I do not understand† (Descartes p. 39) that error is caused. That’s because one is, instead of acting indifferent, passing judgment on things that are not clear in the intellect. A person can easily then turn away from the good and truth given to our intellect by God and partake in sin and deceit (see Descartes p. 39). The finally area that Descartes adds is that in some instances a person can pass judgment on things that aren’t understood and not produce an error. In those cases the person has still acted in an incorrect manor, but it is just be chance that the correct choice, or judgment was made (see Descartes p. 40). It is here that I have concluded Descartes’ argument and will now attempt to seek answers to my own questions: If the will is in fact as free as Descartes speaks? If it is actually comparable to that of God’s? And if it’s ideal state is the same as that of practical use? The first aspect I would like to navigate through is the constraints placed on the ability to choose. One does not have the opportunity to choose freely in an organized society, community or institute. There seems to always be a restriction to the actual amount of choices one has. If Descartes was correct in his assumption of complete freedom of choice and will every option would be available to someone at any given time, in any given situation. But this is not necessarily the condition. There are a few different examples that one can view to comprehend this facet of my argument. Take for instance, perhaps an extreme but an occurrence none the less, people born of poverty do not have the ability to choose to acquire certain things. It is impossible simply by the fact that they do not have the means to get it. There is no choice of purchasing a fifty dollar object if all one has is twenty dollars. I feel though that perhaps Descartes was speaking of another free will, a non-materialistic aspect. Another example one can then try to explain is how in many middle eastern nations individuals are born into a society where one religion is forced upon them. They must live to follow this religion or risk outcast by the community or even death. In such a decision one does not have the opportunity to choose to not follow the religion because, although it may seem available, most choices against the norm bring with them an extreme consequences. Is there really a free will if one knows a consequence to be so evil, or heinous that they really have no choice but to go with the other option. On the other hand if Descartes was strictly speaking of free will in the sense of judgment and affirmation another option arises. One should have the ability to, in a sense, will something even if its not available to him. For example if a person has been convicted of a crime and is going to be sent to prison he can will that he doesn’t have to go. Although here is seems that willing something is almost in a way the same as wishing it. But if it does follow that free will is only involved in passing judgment then a person can will whatever they want in their own mind, it doesn’t mean necessarily that they will receive it. But one again this illustration is somewhat similar to my previous two, in that, if in actuality a choice will provide no outcome is the choice even there and if not it’s a limited faculty. The definition of limitless qualities that Descartes affiliates with the will is something that is questionable as well. Descartes, in a sense, contradicts himself when he says that he can see man’s image and likeness to God in the ability to choose because both are infinite (see Descartes p. 38). But then says that â€Å"the faculty of willing is incomparably greater in God than it is in me† because of the power and knowledge God uses with it (ibid). So I ponder then if the ability to will cannot truly stand on its on, because by Descartes definition it passes certain judgment on something else, and that something in God is greater, how can one be equal to God. How can His infinite ability be greater than man’s infinite ability. By definition there are no degrees of infinite, there is only finite or infinite, limited or limitless. In such a practical aspect I must appeal to my reason and then say that we cannot have an equal will to that of God’s. I say this because God’s willing can partake on any area of knowledge and have a boundless consequence over many things. Where as man’s cannot. As I said, that was my practical deduction of our will in comparison to God’s. I was sure to state practical because I do feel there is a great difference between one’s free will in a practical sense and an ideal sense. Actually in the practical sense I will be so bold as to say one’s will is not free at all. All the examples I have given are practical uses of the will. And all of these examples seem limited for a number of reasons. As I already pointed out, I felt that the comparison between man’s will and God will not be equal because in practice will cannot stand unaccompanied. That is why the will is not free or infinite in a realistic way because it never stands by itself. It relies on other faculties that, as Descartes even says, are limited which in turn make it limited. Therefore when people are faced with choices, like in my examples, not all the options are available because of a lack of knowledge or perhaps a constraint placed on someone from his society. If the will was able to stand alone I would agree that it is an infinite faculty but it doesn’t. Hence I must also reason that the will Descartes speaks of is not the will that can be used in practice but rather it is an ideal will. In this ideal state people would be able to will anything they wanted, although they would most likely not receive it. In an ideal state I would have been able to will that I did not have to do this paper and not receive and F on it, but I very well know that would not have been possible. But the acting of willing alone would be free and infinite. I now must apply what I have learned to Descartes’ original argument of error. Since I have concluded that the ability to choose, or will that Descartes speaks of is ideal, this causation of error would also be ideal. Descartes said that when one should be acting indifferent to things and does not is when errors or correct choices by luck occur (see Descartes p. 39). Ideally this would be true, but in actuality many things lead to errors, and prevention of errors as well. Of course I do agree that in many cases mistakes are made because of people make judgments on things they have lack of knowledge of. But errors and sin can also occur when people have no other choice. For instance if a person is held at gun point and told to do something he may very well be passing a false judgment on something he has total knowledge of and in turn acting in error. From the other side of the argument Descartes says that to prevent himself from ever erring he must follow his feeling of indifference and stick with it instead of attempting to affirm or deny something (see Descartes p. 41). But I must also add to this argument that society does place constraints on things to prevent people from committing errors. Therefore it is not entirely internal. So I will conclude with saying that I have no choice but to say, from my reasoning, that in Meditation on First Philosophy Descartes speaks of a very ideal situation which would, in that state, hold true. But in the practical world one’s perception cannot be so narrow because there are many facets that contribute to what we can do and why we can do them. Works Cited Descartes, Rene. (1993). Meditations on First Philosophy . translated by Donald A. Cress. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Corp.

A Social Psychological Analysis of The Stanford Prison...

Social psychology is an empirical science that studies how people think about, influence, and relate to one another. This field focuses on how individuals view and affect one another. Social psychology also produces the idea of construals which represent how a person perceives, comprehends or interprets the environment. Construals introduce the idea that people want to make themselves look good to others and they want to be seen as right. It is also said that the social setting in which people interact impacts behavior, which brings up the idea of behaviorism. Behaviorism is the idea that behavior is a function of the person and the environment. The ideas of social psychology mentioned above can be applied to the Stanford Prison†¦show more content†¦1). The guards themselves did not feel any guilt while enacting their behavior against the prisoners until after the experiment ended. The behavior of the guards may be related to the term of demand characteristics, which means that they acted the way they did just because they knew they were a part of a study. Zimbardo had told them how he wanted them to behave and they gave him just that. In a way the social desirability bias applies here because they were trying to conform to the â€Å"normal† idea of a prison guard. A guard who had taken on the persona of â€Å"John Wayne† believed that the experiment was not very harmful, just degrading to the prisoners. He admitted to running his own experiment throughout the course of the study by seeing how far he could push people before they would tell him to stop. In Ratensar’s article, the guard says â€Å"†¦ the other guards didn’t stop me. They seemed to join in. They were taking my lead. Not a single guard said, â€Å"I don’t think we should do this†Ã¢â‚¬  (p. 4). A social psychologist may refer to his response as effort justification. He had put effort into the study so he wanted to be able to justify his actions, and in doing so, the idea of construals can be introduced here because he is trying to make his behavior look right and in a sense, make himself look good to others. The prisoners were made to feel as if theShow MoreRelatedDr. Philip Zimbardo s The Stanford Prison Experiment 1442 Words   |  6 Pagesinformation obtained through research, regarding the Stanford Prison Experiment during the year of 1971. This case study will pay particular attention to the inmate and guard life. Background Dr. Philip Zimbardo conducted one of the most dramatic psychological experiments just to answer two questions, â€Å"What happens when you put good people in an evil place?† and â€Å"Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph?† The aim of the Stanford Prison Experiment was to investigate how willingly people would adjustRead MoreA Critical Review Of Zimbardo s Stanford Prison Experiment And The Bbc Prison Study1510 Words   |  7 PagesA critical review of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment and the BBC Prison Study Introduction Tyranny is defined: an unequal social system involving the arbitrary or oppressive use of power by one group over another (Reicher Haslam, 2006). The link made between groups and tyranny has a long history in social psychology being prominent nearly 2,400 years ago with the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle believed that collective rule leads to moral irresponsibility, haphazardness and isRead MoreDo Good People Turn Evil?925 Words   |  4 PagesPeople Turn Evil?, Doctor Adam Grant suggested that researchers might have drawn the wrong conclusions from both Stanley Milgram’s â€Å"obedience† experiments, and Philip Zimbardo’s infamous Stanford Prison Experiment. Milgram’s studies focused on the conflict between one’s obedience to authority, and one’s personal conscience. He devised a series of experiments in which involved participants (ordinary males from the New Haven area), to electrocute another individual. Participants where given the roleRead MoreThe Social Pressures Of Large Group On How Individuals Think, Feel, Act And858 Words   |  4 PagesExperiment designer Solomon Asch conducted a line study in 1951 to show the social pressures of large group on how individuals think, feel, act and respond in social situations . The test had been given to a group of subjects who were asked to pick out and match line lengths. Asch’s experiment showed how easy it is to just assimilate with the majority rather than fight the current of the group and inspired many other studies that kept adding on support to his claim. Thus, the analysis of the groupthinkRead MoreStanford Prison Experiment Essay1150 Words   |  5 Pag esethical or could it be said that ones true colors would show? A group of researchers, headed by Stanford University psychologist Philip G. Zimbardo, designed and executed an unusual experiment that used a mock prison setting, with college students role-playing either as prisoners or guards to test the power of the social situation to determine psychological effects and behavior (1971). The experiment simulated a real life scenario of William Golding’s novel, â€Å"Lord of the Flies† showing a decay andRead MorePsychological Analysis On Obedience And The Stanford Prison Experiment1258 Words   |  6 Pages Psychological Analysis on Obedience What forms a person’s predisposition to act in a certain way in any given situation? Is our personality something that we are born with or does it develop over time, and furthermore once it is ‘developed’ can it be significantly influenced by our surroundings? It is something that each of us wonders as we go about our daily lives. We wish that our circumstances were different so that we could be different people. Most of the time this type of thinking, if verbalizedRead MoreThe Psychological Impact Of Imprisonment For Two Weeks1487 Words   |  6 Pagescircumstance to bring it out. In a prison, will a guard abuse their power? Or will a prisoner have a mental breakdown? In the Stanford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo saw that when â€Å"normal† people are given too much power, they can transform into harsh oppressors within days. Although the main intent of the experiment was to test the psychological impact of imprisonment for two weeks, the findings from th is experiment were so much more: with the guards immediate gain of power and social ranking and the prisonersRead MoreSocial Psychologist Philip Zimbardo s Prison Experiment And Stanley Milgram s Obedience923 Words   |  4 Pagespeople doing bad things we assume it is because they are bad people. Social Psychologist Philip Zimbardo would argue that this isn’t true. In April 2004 disturbing and graphic pictures surfaced, showing American soldiers mentally and physically abusing Iraqi prisoners held at the Abu Ghraib prison located in Bagdad. Looking at the photos that was surfaced, it looks strikingly familiar to those in the Stanford prison experiment that was done many years ago. The prisoners had bags over their headsRead MoreSocial Psychological Explanations For The Emergence Of Public Disorder1287 Words   |  6 PagesIdentify and describe social psychological explanations for the emergence of public disorder. Public disorder can be defined as any behavioural act in the public eye that goes against societal norms. This may be an act of an individual or from members of a larger group. Gustave le Bon (1895) categorises a group or â€Å"crowd† as those possessing characteristics including â€Å"impulsiveness, irritability, incapacity to reason, the absence of judgement and of the critical spirit, the exaggeration of theRead MoreMilgram s Experiment Of Obedience Authority, Known As The Shock Experiment1911 Words   |  8 PagesPhilip G. Zimbardo, a social psychologist, presented a classic psychology research in the situational effects on human behaviour. This explains how situations can modify an individual to act in ways they would not have acted before. Zimbardo highlights that a person are seduced into evil by dehumanising and labelling others; and notes that an individual who has a sense of anonymity increases their aggression, such as wearing a uniform or a mask. The Stanford prison experiment, which Zimbardo conducted