SIBT ACBE100 Assignment 4: Persuasive Texts 代写

SIBT - Macquarie University ACBE100 Assignment 4: Persuasive Texts (40%)   Persuasive Essay: Final due date Monday 4pm Week 14 (draft week 12-13) Weighting Essay: 30% Word limit: Essay 1,200 words   Persuasive Brochure: Final due date Monday 4pm Week 14 (draft week 12-13) Weighting Brochure: 10% Word limit: Brochure 300 words Persuasive Essay Task: Identify a recommendation in response to the social inclusion issue topic that you have been working on and develop a thesis to argue for this recommendation. Outline the key arguments in an argument essay, supporting a central thesis, referencing relevant evidence to support each argument before reiterating and reinforcing the thesis through a summary of salient arguments in your conclusion. The argument essay required here is an exposition, including the following stages: - Background: Brief introduction to the issue contextualising the problem - Thesis: States the author’s position (includes scope, stance & conclusion) - Arguments: Concisely communicate the rationale for the thesis through definition, explanation and the integration of supporting evidence - Thesis Reinforcement: Restates (rewords) the thesis and summarises salient supporting arguments The essay will be written for a specialist, academic audience and will identify a recommendation in response to the social inclusion issue topic (including three main arguments supporting your thesis). You must reference at least eight (8) sources and demonstrate the ability to synthesise information and views from a variety of perspectives to produce a coherent, well-supported recommendation. Persuasive Brochure Task: The brochure will similarly outline significant issues related to your research topic, and will guide readers to a “call to action” recommendation. It will be written for a non-specialised non-academic audience and will focus on one of the recommendations and present the “solution” as an organisation or product to be “marketed” or “sold” to the reader. The brochure will be of publishing quality and include four key parts: -Engaging Title: concisely identifies the main idea and rhetorically “asks” or poses the recommendation being presented; brief description of the problem (nominalised form). SIBT - Macquarie University -Identification/Description (“Who we are”): The group or “idea” being presented is identified, defined and described; the organisation is defined & described. -Context Relevance (“What we believe”): Situates the “organisation” (i.e., the personified position/recommendation) within a context. -Engagement “Hook”: Call to action to engage readers, aligning him/her through a response invitation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Remember to include the following: An SIBT cover sheet An annotated draft of your essay An annotated draft of your brochure A full Turn It In report (from the link provided on the ACBE100 iLearn page) for the essay A full Turn It In report (from the link provided on the ACBE100 iLearn page) for the brochure The final version of your essay -  The final version of your brochure *Penalties apply for late/incomplete submissions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIBT - Macquarie University Model of a Persuasive Essay: “The international development of penal systems” In the international development of penal systems, there are two opposing schools of thought. The first perspective supports more punitive sentencing and the increasing use of imprisonment, both as a means of retribution and incapacitation. The second perspective supports a powerful movement towards the internationalization of probation through the establishment of probation services. These rehabilitative, probation services are integral for a penal system founded in spiritual and moral codes, social reconstruction and restorative justice. The first argument for developing rehabilitative services is a moral, spiritual one. Historically, probation services in the western world began with the Church’s missionary service, seen as an extension of their normal work of trying to persuade sinners to reform (McWilliams, 1983, p. 68; Vanstone, 2004, pp. 92-94). Christians had a duty to show mercy to sinners, and charity gave this a practical form, but active and caring human contact was necessary to persuade “sinners” to reform. This kind of work was seen as the business of voluntary organisations and charities rather than Government. Social and spiritual rehabilitation is commendable, but the overarching goal is salvation, and other achievements are valued mainly as means towards this end. Evidence of achievement of the ultimate goal of salvation is beyond the reach of secular social science (Raynor & Robinson, 2009, p. 3). The second argument for developing probation services as part of the penal code stems from utilitarian views of social reconstruction. Under this paradigm, the offender to be rehabilitated is guided to become a good citizen rather than merely a good person (Garland, 1985, p. 279). The aim of this Utilitarian tradition is a penal system that transforms offenders into decent and useful members of the community by the most efficient means. This perspective also offers a clear justification for rehabilitative efforts. These efforts contribute to the service of the community through the availability of ‘decent and useful members of the community’ for the collective task of social reconstruction (Mannheim, 1946, p. 62). The third argument for offender rehabilitation focuses on the benefit to potential victims and to the community. Under this view, Rehabilitation is advocated on the grounds that it is better for both offenders and society because it can reduce further offending and victimizations (McGuire, 1995, p. 28). This primacy accorded to public safety is described by Garland (2001) as a shift in the justification of rehabilitation: the emphasis moves from the benefit to the offender towards the benefit to potential future victims; in other words, it is for the community’s sake that rehabilitation is attempted. Such approaches are associated particularly with advocates of restorative justice who believe that reintegrative processes can help offenders to atone for or make reparation for their offences at the same time as helping offenders and victims to learn something of each other (Braithwaite, 1989, p. 2). The aim is the restoration or establishment of social bonds that both offer the offender membership of a community and consequently strengthen informal controls over his or her behaviour. Therefore, the aim of probation services is to view rehabilitation not simply as meeting offenders’ needs or correcting their deficits, but as harnessing and developing their strengths and assets, achieving both moral and secular motivations (Maruna & Lebel, 2003, p. 9). SIBT - Macquarie University References Braithwaite, J 1989 Crime, Shame and Reintegration, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Garland, D 2001 The Culture of Control, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Garland, D 1985 Punishment and Welfare: A History of Penal Strategies, Gower, Aldershot. Mannheim, H 1946 Criminal Justice and Social Reconstruction, Routledge, London. Maruna, S & King, A 2004 ‘Public opinion and community penalties’ in A Bottoms, S Rex and G Robinson (eds.) Alternatives to Prison. Willan, Cullompton, pp. 7-20. McGuire, J (ed.) 1995 What Works: Reducing Reoffending, Wiley, Chichester. McWilliams, W 1983 ‘The mission to the English Police Courts 1876-1936’, The Howard Journal, vol. 22, pp. 129-147. Neave, M 2004 ‘Restorative Justice’: when is it appropriate?, Victorian Law Reform Commission, pp. 1- 9. Raynor, P & Robinson, G 2009, ‘Why help offenders? Arguments for rehabilitation as a penal strategy’, European Journal of Probation, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3-20. Vanstone, M 2004 Supervising Offenders in the Community: A History of Probation Theory and Practice, Aldershot, Ashgate. SIBT - Macquarie University Persuasive Brochure (model of the content of a brochure) Rehabilitative Probation Services—What does it really offer? Who we are Rehabilitative Probationary Services is a group of community- centred individuals proactively working toward sustainable solutions for offender re-entry. RPS cooperates with law enforcement, policy makers and community leaders to provide a seamless transition for offenders to effectively re-enter the community. What we believe Offender re-entry is a community process… …and as such, members of the community should have a voice in how policies are shaped and carried out. History has proven that offender re-entry programs cannot succeed without the ongoing support and input from those most invested in the community. That is why RPS engages community members to invest in the policies and practices that inform offender re-entry. Rehabilitation is good for all… …even victims. One of the key arguments against probation services is the recurring emotional and psychological cost to the victims. RPS acknowledges the impact to victims and cooperates with community counsellors to provide the necessary support to guide victims through the processes of their offender’s rehabilitation. Punitive Sentencing has a place… …but rather than being the norm we believe it should be the exception. RPS works closely with law enforcement and policy makers to screen suitable candidates and ensure that dangerous offenders are appropriately Rehabilitation is more than remediation… …and effective rehabilitation, like the programs we promote, focus on harnessing and developing offenders’ strengths and assets. How you can get involved (hook)… RPS members bring the voice of the community to the ears of decision-makers. We want you to help decide how offenders are reintroduced to our neighbourhoods. Sign up today to become an active member of our online community. You will receive our weekly email newsletters and be able to post on our online forum. Join today and have your say in these important matters.