Policy Development Paper Research Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Policy Development - Research Paper Example This should require sufficient level and amount of control. This eventually paves the way for another substantial policy under the existing PREA. In this paper, the proponent considers two policy options: intense work knowledge with experts and enhancement policy; and standardization of operating procedure policy. Under the policy ensuring intense work knowledge enhancement with experts, the correctional staffs are expected to become more experts in doing their respective role in the custodial setting with LGBT youth. Instead of becoming a potential source of verbal and physical harassments, they would become primarily source of eventual change in the juvenile system primarily in dealing with LGBT youth, their safety and sexual orientations. However, this would basically incur remarkable amount of cost on the side of the government or state. This would also lessen maximum actual work activity at the custodial setting as the correctional staffs must undertake field exposure together w ith experts. Thus, additional manpower must be provided to compensate their absence in the actual custodial setting activity. ... ed to consider the level of up to what extent some changes can be reasonably made, knowing the fact there are various circumstances and situations that need careful considerations from various states. Among these two policies, the best rationale used in order to choose which is appropriate is the consideration of less political domination upon its actual implementation. It seems policy next to the status quo seems to less complicate the future political associations within the juvenile justice system, for it primarily deals with actual performance and output. Ensuring actual performance and output may less complicate political control or domination within the justice system as the actual service involved could be directly be imposed to providing the best safety and equality LGBT youths deserve within the juvenile justice system. 1. Introduction According to the ‘The National Transgender Discrimination Survey’ around 15 percent of Trans people experienced sexual assaults while in prison.1 This is quite alarming because to be sexually assaulted is not supposed to be part of the sentence and according to the authority it should not be part of the sentence. The emancipated Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) has been viewed to help the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) especially those youth in custodial settings to be protected from sexual assaults while incarcenerated. After all, even though they might have different sexual orientation compared to normal heterosexual individuals, they are still humans who have the basic right generally covered by the state. Part of this is their right to protect themselves from being sexually exploited and to only deserve the sentence associated with whatever crimes they would be found guilty. The PREA seems to be at the

People's Mujahidin Organization of Iran v. United States Department of Essay

People's Mujahidin Organization of Iran v. United States Department of State - Essay Example The organization was known to conduct various terrorist activities during the regime of Khomeini as well as the Shah, which made the unpopularity of MeK inevitable. However, the organization claims to have ceased all of its terrorist activities since 2001 and has been aiming to improve its international ever since. This brings us to February 11th 2009, when the MeK filed a petition in the U.S court of Appeals to challenge its designation into FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization) by the U.S. Department of State. The MeK claims that it has halted all of its terrorist activities since 2001, with valid proof, and the decision of the Department of State to keep the organization listed in the FTO in 2008 and 2003 is unfair. This created a point of confrontation between the two organizations. One needs to take for account both sides of the cases in order to understand the condition properly (Alexander, 2003). In 1996 according to the AEDPA, the Department of State to create a list of global terrorist organizations called the FTO. It was done to cease their working inside the United States. The FTO was to be reviewed by the Department of State once every two years and later every five years to keep the list updated. MeK has been a part of the list since 2003 and has filed a petition to the department of state in 2008 to delist the organization from the list. The MeK has also provided various evidences for this petition to become a reality. The MeK has presented the following changes in its activities and prospects: Ceased every ongoing military campaign in the territory of Iran since 2001. Has shared valuable intelligence information with the U.S. government regarding Iran’s nuclear program and alleged terrorist activities. Has surrendered all of its arms and military equipment to the U.S. military forces of Iraq and cooperated with the U.S. military forces at Camp Ashraf in Iraq. Has obtained a delisting from terrorist organizations from various countries, such as the United Kingdom and the European Union. Has rejected violence and terrorist activities on record in 2004. Even after these substantial evidences, the U.S. Department State ruled out the petition of MeK and maintained its listing in the FTO as a terrorist organization. A listing in the FTO means that all assets an organization has in the United States will be overtaken by the government and the organization will not be allowed to hold any activity, even peaceful, inside the U.S. territory. For the U.S. Department of State to justify its decision, they released a 20-page document to support their decision. In such documents, the Department was expected to give a detailed description of each of every difference stated by the MeK. This wasn’t the case here (McCormack and McDonald, 2006). The document, when analyzed by various analysts was found to be filled with one-sided reviews of past activities, dating back in the 1980’s and the 1990’s by the MeK. The dep artment did not give any pro and cons of the activities mentioned by the MeK in their petition to the department and were all pointing towards the activities conducted by the organization way before 2001, after which the organization claims to have changed. Some descriptions given in the document was even contradictory to the activities of the MeK such as, â€Å"On October 12, 2006, I received information that questioned activities were going on at the University compound, [C]amp