Na Yeon Lee Professor Collins Writing 39C16 August 2017 Abstract For most parents it is common knowledge that kids are different however each of them deserves them extra care protection and guidance from the responsible authorities in their lives. Unfortunately in the U.S. thousands of these youths who are under the age of 18 are being subjected to confinement in adult prisons and jails. Each year many young people are being subjected to solitary confinement both in the adult or juvenile correctional facility in the U.S. While many of these incidences are done with the hope of correcting the offenders solitary confinement leaves many undesirable effects to the young people. Solitary can result into long-lasting impacts which can be devastating on the young citizens. The devastating effects include psychosis trauma depression anxiety increased risk of self-harm and even suicide. To add to this many of the young citizens both doing a research are suggesting the introduction of alternate forms of punishment to be given to the young offenders as opposed to solitary confinemtn. The authors cite the adverse effects of solitary confinement as their reason for demanding alternate forms of correction. Shalev Sharon. "5. Solitary confinement as a prison health issue." Prisons and Health. 2014 www.euro.who.int -5-Solitary-confinement-as-a-prison-health-issue.pdfThe author Shalev discusses the psychological as well as health issues that come forward when the youths are placed under solitary confinement. Shear Michael D. “Obama Bans Solitary Confinement of Juveniles in Federal Prisons.” TheNew York Times The New York Times 25 Jan. 2016nytimes.com article discusses the various legal measure put in place to curb the use of solitary confinement in juvenile prisons. In the article the former president of the U.S. is seen to ban solitary confinement in the juvenile prisons based on the negative effects brought about by the system of punishment. [...]
PROMPT: you research and evaluate various sources, and as you draft, craft and organize your thoughts and evidence, you will at some point have to make a decision to advocate for one or more specific solutions to a significant and current political/social/cultural problem. In other words, your arguments for advocating such solutions and the analytical reasons you provide for why you have chosen these solutions will together, after weeks and weeks of diligent engagement, become a richly-textured thesis statement. When we think of the act of advocating and when we imagine a person or an organization who is an advocate for a cause, we think of strongly held opinions delivered with intensity from a rhetorical position that appears unshakable, deeply confident in the ethical rightness of its arguments and the accuracy of its knowledge. If we look at advocacy in such ways, we can understand why it takes time to become a convincing advocate, and that advocacy, even when it is delivered in the form of a thesis-driven composition, is a variety of argumentation that can be quite different from the balanced arguments we often think of as academic writing even if it is as rigorous its presentation of evidence. This is not to say that academic writers are not advocates. They are, and over the course of this project, you will become such an advocate—one who uses academic research and methods to deliver persuasive arguments convincingly to a public of one’s peers. Academic writers in many disciplines often write with the purpose of advocating for solutions to political/social/cultural/environmental problems. When they do so, they are expected to consider and present positions that run against theirs in various ways – call them counter arguments – in order to meet the expectations of their academic audience. They must demonstrate their mastery of established arguments and knowledge in an area of discourse and recognize the legitimacy of other perspectives, even if the author seeks ultimately to dismiss them. In the realm of public advocacy, arguments and persuasion can look, feel, and sound quite different. Public advocates deliver strong and impassioned arguments by undermining counter arguments without necessarily considering their virtues. They do so by choice and with knowledge about the various perspectives and pieces of evidence that may potentially undermine their case. When putting forth arguments in academic or public settings, the most convincing advocates do not simply put forward solutions without first comprehending the informed debates in which these solutions are situated. Rather, successful advocates draw from a deep well of knowledge when carefully selecting the evidence and rhetorical appeals that will make their case about how to address the profound social problems they put before their audiences.