Summarize the post .
For each discussion activity, you are responsible for posting a reply to at least one postings made by your classmates.
After you have made your original post, read some of the posts from your classmates and construct two reply post of 100-150 words that responds to three of your group-mate’s original posts. Your reply post should be written such that it does one or more of: identifies something that you find especially interesting or insightful about your classmate’s original post; poses an engaging and relevant question and/or builds on the ideas from your classmate’s original post; raises a real-life experience or observation that you feel would be relevant to illustrate or help further develop an idea or point in your classmate’s original post.
Please note that you will need to make an original post before you can read and respond to your peers’ posts.
Some points to keep in mind:
Be clear and to the point in your postings.
Edit your work. Your posts should be coherent and use proper grammar and spelling.
Keep postings to 100-150 words. Quality is better than quantity.
Contribute your own thoughts about the material you have read.
Support your thoughts by referencing the readings used, and references used in post below or other outside literature.
Raise additional questions or points of discussion to stimulate further discussion.
If you have questions, show that you have already tried to find a solution.
Respect the viewpoints of your peers. Ask for clarification if you don’t understand a point. Assume good intentions.
Use the proper terminology introduced in the course readings.
When using literature in your postings, make sure to provide references in proper APA 7 Style.
Show respect and sensitivity to peers’ gender, cultural and linguistic background, political, and religious beliefs.
You are strongly encouraged to take the time to review the following documents on writing quality discussion posting and on taking roles in discussions.Taking a role in online discussion.Taking a Role in Online Discussions Below are some roles that anyone in an online discussion can fulfill in order to help move an online discussion forward in productive ways. See if you can determine what role is required in your online discussion and then write a message that takes on that role. Devil’s Advocate • Takes opposing points of view to those currently under discussion Pollinator • Travels to other groups, reads their postings and summarizes points made in other groups not made in home group. Facilitator • Comments on the groups process (e.g. “Perhaps we should all remember to put a subject line in our messages.”) • Encourages others to participate, • Starts a thread or an idea on the topic, if the discussion lags. Summarizer / Discussion Weaver • Summarizes the discussion for the group at specific intervals in 1 or 2 short paragraphs. Usually summarizes twice per week or if the discussion lags • Reminds others about what has already been discussed. • Asks the group what issues have been concluded and what ones are still to be discussed. • Relates ideas in posted messages to one another. Researcher • Assumes responsibility for looking at what is available on the net, journals etc. and brings ideas back to the group. Responder Replies to others and builds on the ideas of others. This is a role that everyone in the group must perform for every discussion.
POST-1 (Kaitlynn Piche)
After reviewing the article and reflecting on what I wrote for the You Be the Judge Activity, I find that my rankings and sentence recommendations align well with my initial judgments. However, I would make some minor adjustments to reflect a deeper understanding of culpability and public perspectives.
My original ranking of the seriousness of the offences; H, B, F, G, A, E, D, and C, was based on factors such as intent, premeditation, recklessness, and the presence of special circumstances. After considering the public knowledge and opinion discussed in the article, I believe my rankings remain appropriate, as they account for the deliberate nature of some actions and the special circumstances in others. However, I might reconsider the ranking of Scenario B. After learning more about how society tends to view mercy killings, I now think Scenario F, might be seen as more serious than B. This is due to Scenario F involving premeditation and a clearer choice to take someone’s life, while Scenario B stems more from compassion and the intent to fulfill the victim’s wishes. For the most part, I would continue with my original sentence recommendations, though there are a few changes. For Scenario H, while the sentence of second-degree murder stays appropriate, I would consider lowering the duration of the sentence to 8-12 years. Coercion can reduce the blameworthiness here, as the man acted out of extreme pressure, even though he still had the option of going to the police. For Scenario F, I would continue with the sentence and its duration, however, given the context of the homicide, it may benefit to consider the effectiveness of programs like counselling because of the abuse history. I do not think I would change my views on Scenarios G, E, D and C, as these are non-culpable homicides where the actions were not meant to cause harm or be intentional. Mitchell, B., & Roberts, J. V. (2012). Sentencing for Murder: Exploring Public Knowledge and Public Opinion in England and Wales1. The British Journal of Criminology, 52(1), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azr073
less
POST-2 (Vihanya Jayatilake )
Based on the insights gained from Mitchell and Roberts (2012), I would approach the ranking and sentencing of these scenarios differently. Their research highlights the gap between public perception of homicide seriousness and actual sentencing practices, emphasizing that public opinion often fails to account for nuanced factors such as offender culpability, mitigating circumstances, and the role of necessity or duress (Mitchell and Roberts, 2012).
Changes in ranking
Initially, I ranked Scenario H and Scenario A as the most serious due to their high culpability. However, Mitchell and Roberts (2012) argue that context and mitigating factors should weigh heavily in assessing blameworthiness. In light of this, I now see Scenario H as less straightforward. The duress the offender faced is a significant mitigating factor, potentially lowering its rank below premeditated or wholly reckless acts like Scenario A. Scenario F (abused woman killing her husband) also merits reconsideration; her actions were premeditated, but the prolonged abuse significantly reduces her moral culpability. Consequently, I would rank Scenario A as the most serious, followed by Scenario H, Scenario F, and Scenario B.
Changes in sentencing
Mitchell and Roberts (2012) emphasize the importance of aligning sentences with culpability and mitigating factors rather than purely the outcomes of actions. This perspective would influence my sentencing recommendations as follows:
1.Scenario A: I would maintain an 8-year sentence for manslaughter. The recklessness during a burglary leading to death remains highly culpable with no mitigating factors.
2.Scenario H: I would reduce the sentence from 15 years to 10 years for second-degree murder. The man acted under severe duress, a mitigating circumstance warranting a reduction, though the premeditated killing still necessitates significant punishment.
3.Scenario F: I would reduce the sentence from 3 years to a conditional discharge or probation. Mitchell and Roberts (2012) highlight that the public often supports leniency for victims of abuse acting out of desperation. This reflects societal recognition of her diminished culpability.
4.Scenario B: I would maintain the 5-year sentence, as the compassionate motive mitigates the severity, but the act still involved taking a life deliberately.
5.Scenario D: I would consider community service or probation instead of 2 years in prison, given the extremely low culpability highlighted by the accidental nature of the act.
My deeper understanding of culpability, duress, and mitigating factors from Mitchell and Roberts (2012) has refined my perception of these scenarios. I now appreciate the need for greater nuance in ranking and sentencing decisions. This reflects a more informed approach that balances public expectations with the complexities of each case.
References
Mitchell, B., & Roberts, J. V. (2012). Sentencing for Murder: Exploring Public Knowledge and Public Opinion in England and Wales1. The British Journal of Criminology, 52(1), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azr073
POST-3 (Alyssa Speyer)
Revisiting the “You Be the Judge Activity” from Unit 02 after reading Mitchell and Roberts (2012), my understanding of the seriousness of offences and sentencing has significantly evolved. The article highlights how public knowledge of sentencing practices is often limited and how perceptions can shift when nuanced details of cases are considered. This resonates with the judgments I initially made and prompts me to reassess my earlier decisions.
In Scenario A, I originally classified the offence as culpable homicide, recommending sentences for manslaughter and aggravated burglary. Reflecting now, I might emphasise the proportionality of the sentences more carefully. While the burglar’s recklessness justified my initial assessment, my new understanding of sentencing principles from the article would lead me to prioritise rehabilitation alongside punishment, especially for offenders who might not fully comprehend the gravity of their actions. For Scenario B, I had classified the act of euthanasia as second-degree murder, recommending 25 years with parole. My earlier response focused on the premeditated nature of the act and its violation of legal norms. However, Mitchell and Roberts (2012) discuss the public’s growing acceptance of mitigating factors in cases involving moral dilemmas. I might now advocate for a lesser sentence or a unique legal categorization, acknowledging the compassionate intent behind the husband’s actions while still upholding the law.
My assessment of non-culpability in Scenarios C, D, and E remains largely unchanged. These cases involved a lack of intent or direct legal responsibility. However, Mitchell and Roberts highlight the public’s tendency to shift perspectives when additional case details are presented. If new evidence emerged in these scenarios (e.g., a prior relationship between the individuals), it could influence my views on culpability. Scenario F is a particularly compelling case for reflection. I initially labelled the act as non-culpable homicide but recommended a manslaughter conviction with a light sentence (2-4 years) due to the history of prolonged victimisation. The article’s insights on the importance of considering societal contexts, such as gender-based violence, reinforce my original reasoning. However, I would now frame this case more explicitly within the broader societal failings that contributed to the offender’s desperation, advocating for alternative interventions like restorative justice.
For Scenario H, I classified the act as second-degree murder under duress and recommended a sentence of 10-15 years. After engaging with the research, I am more attuned to the challenges of weighing coercion against personal accountability. Mitchell and Roberts emphasise the public’s divided opinions on such cases, which aligns with my initial struggle to balance leniency with culpability.
Overall, my reflections reveal a deeper appreciation for the complexities of sentencing. While my initial judgments aimed to balance fairness and justice, the insights from Mitchell and Roberts (2012) highlight the importance of public education in fostering nuanced discussions on crime and punishment. If I were to revisit these scenarios today, I would approach them with a more informed perspective, placing greater weight on mitigating factors and the broader social contexts influencing each case.
POST-4 (Owen Watt)
After reading the article, I think that after reading the article my answers would remain very similar. I answered that I thought that the break and enter resulting in death should be punished severely, as a murder charge. Learning that most people charged with murder in England and Wales serve 15.5 years changes my overall answers for situations where I though the killer was guilty. In these situations, I would make the sentences longer, since they are only doing part of them or give them life sentences. The situations where it was reactionary self-defence or the woman who killed her abusive husband in his sleep, I would leave my responses the same, because I gave them all 0-3 years and after reading the article my thoughts about those situations are unchanged.
LABEL POST -1 AS (Kaitlynn Piche)
Post -1 summary reply WRITE in 8-12 lines also add personal opinion it should be personal opinion about other post and also add creative attractive question. Do not use AI AND CHATGPT AS MAM HAS SOFTWARE TO DETECT EACH AND EVERY LINE . She has software to detect each and every single word.
Label post -2 as (Vihanya Jayatilake )
oPost -2 summary reply WRITE in 8-12 lines also add personal opinion it should be personal opinion about other post and also add creative attractive question. Do not use AI AND CHATGPT AS MAM HAS SOFTWARE TO DETECT EACH AND EVERY LINE . She has software to detect each and every single word.
Label post -3 as (Alyssa Speyer)
oPost -3 summary reply WRITE in 8-12 lines also add personal opinion it should be personal opinion about other post and also add creative attractive question. Do not use AI AND CHATGPT AS MAM HAS SOFTWARE TO DETECT EACH AND EVERY LINE . She has software to detect each and every single word.
Label post -4 as (Owen Watt)
oPost -4 summary reply WRITE in 8-12 lines also add personal opinion it should be personal opinion about other post and also add creative attractive question. Do not use AI AND CHATGPT AS MAM HAS SOFTWARE TO DETECT EACH AND EVERY LINE . She has software to detect each and every single word
oGrading criteria is
Criteria A+ Discussion Post
Reply
Post
(4-5 points)
All response posts engaged classmates in further dialogue on the topic.
Length guidelines met; writing clear and compelling; poses an engaging and relevant question and/or builds on the ideas from a classmate’s original post OR raises a real-life experience or observation relevant to illustrating or further developing an idea or point in a classmate’s original post.
§please start reading instructions mam
and guidelines and you have to answer to this i am proving the grading rubrics everything write in own words and do not use AI AND CHATGPT AS MAM HAS THE SOFTAWARE TO DETECT.EACH AND EVERY LINE and each and every single word.
§I Have also attached the grading rubric photo which is in form of image grading rubric is very much important you have to follow each and every instruction very carefully.
§only these sources which i have provided you have been provided in post for post1 and reference for post which are provided only those no outsource has to be used.
§I have attached the grading rubric for student reply post.