Log in
HomeClass Notes1,200,000CA670,000

CRM 100 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: Correctional Service Of Canada, Color Blindness, Sanctuary City

34 views8 pages
whitehedgehog731
29 May 2020
School
Ryerson University
Department
Criminology
Course
CRM 100
Professor
Anne- Marie Singh

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

In canada, we like to think we are colour blind. There has been an informal ban on ethnicity based data. We don"t have national sources of data. However recently there has been more pressure on police to do this. There have been discussions about the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the justice system. There is an open acknowledgement now that canada has failed indigenous groups. There is a little bit of ethnicity based data from correctional services canada. Even though indigenous people account for only 5% of the population, they account for. 24% of the population custody in federal prisons. About 30% of indigenous people are in the provincial institutions. Men are overrepresented in the provincial prisons. Women are underrepresented in the criminal justice system. Women come into court for mainly non violent crimes as compared to men who are brought in for more violent offences. Historically, there have been two theories to explain the representation:

Get access

Grade+
$40 USD/m
Billed monthly
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
10 Verified Answers
Class+
$30 USD/m
Billed monthly
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
7 Verified Answers

Related Documents

CRM 100 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: Saskatoon Freezing Deaths, Race Card, Modern Philosophy
greenporcupine150
CRM 100 Lecture Notes - Lecture 9: Restorative Justice, Assault Causing Bodily Harm
orchidtermite488
CRM 100 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Uniform Crime Reports, Clearance Rate, Nimby
ochrefish660

Related Questions

Objectives:

Ý· Learn how individuals contribute to teamwork

Ý· Experience some of the features of group work and teamwork

Ý· Understand what managers and organizational developers do to transform

Ý· groups into teams

Ý· Articulate the tangible benefits (both quantitative and qualitative) of

Ý· high-performing teams

Ý· Finish with an interest in learning more about these concepts and

Ý· techniques to apply what you learn

Background: For this assignment, you will plan and play a game with your family or friends, or at work based on the idea of the classic prisoner's dilemma. If you have had a class on game theory, you will be well aware of this concept. It forms the basis of many TV game shows. The prisoner's dilemma was illustrated in Truman Capote's book, "In Cold Blood" concerning the 1959 robbery of a Kansas farmhouse by Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, who murdered their victims in order to eliminate the witnesses. After the men were captured, the police interrogated them separately. To get a confession, the police offered the men a reduced sentence for cooperating. Failure to cooperate would result in a death penalty charge for both.

In the prisoner's dilemma, if both parties cooperate they are mildly punished; if one betrays another, one is severely punished while the other goes free; and if both betray one-another, both are moderately punished. Can you think of settings where you work in which the organizational structure has created a prisoner's dilemma? Competition can (but does not necessarily) bring out conflict.

In game theory, there are non-cooperative and cooperative games. A non-cooperative zero-sum game has a definite winner and loser. For one to win, one must lose. We often think of politicking as an element of that. A cooperative game is where everyone who plays is better off for having played than not having played the game. That is not to say that everyone is equally well off, but simply better off than they were before playing. Hence, even in a cooperative game, some people will likely benefit more than others.

Instructions

  • Review in your textbook, the Big Five personality dimensions, pp. 82�84, and then consider the 3.1 Personality Insights inventory, pp. 89�91
  • Select four or five friends, coworkers, or family members and have them take the personality inventory
  • Plan and play a game with the participants
  • Write a 5-10 page paper that addresses the assignment questions below


As you plan and play your game, you will negotiate the type of game you want to play and your role in it. Strive to determine some personal characteristics of the game participants a head of time, or by observing them. Consider how the personal characteristics of the individuals in the game manifest themselves in the informal roles they assume during the planning and execution of the game.

For the purpose of this assignment, you will want both a cooperative and a competitive element. To do that, you can form several groups to compete and cooperate with each other, or you can have individuals in one group compete and cooperate. You can use rewards and/or punishments to create the competitive/cooperative motivations.



Evaluation: When groups are formed, we want to consider how organizational structures, processes, and situations impact on group motivation, politics, and goals achievement. Alignment of all of these structural, personal, and interpersonal components will help to ensure that the group will meld into a team. A defining feature of teamwork (versus group work) is cooperation!

One of the factors that affect cooperation is conflict. Conflict is defined as when someone perceives that his/her interests are opposed or negatively impacted by another. Conflict can at times produce positive results depending on the basis for the conflict and how the conflict is handled (functional conflict). The worst kind of dysfunctional conflict produces betrayal.

Note that team performance can be observed in how well the team coordinates their interdependencies, works efficiently, communicates, and accomplishes their mission. Consequently, as you implement your game, assess your players based on these factors and the informal roles they play.

After you have played the game, reflect on the personality assessments your participants took, and then consider how they planned and played the game.

Write a (5- 10) page analysis to address the following questions:

1. How well did the personality assessments reflect in the behaviors participants displayed during the game?

2. What do these assessments tell us about how we perceive ourselves versus how others perceive us?

3. What informal roles did participants assume during the game, and were they different from the planning portion from the playing portion of the exercise?

4. What did I learn about myself? For example, did the exercise show that you have characteristic ways of relating to others that are distinctive, or similar, to those the others? Did the exercise show that in a particular type of situation you acted in a particular way, or that when others acted in a particular way, you felt happy or anxious or angry, etc.?

5. What did I learn about someone else in the exercise? Did you see something new about them, such as "they seemed more capable than I imagined," or "inattentive when things were stressful?"

6. In playing your game, what could you have done to increase cooperative behaviors?

7. Based on your game experience, what are some of the key factors involved in gaining cooperation from people in a business setting?


8. How would you go about getting cooperation from a "difficult" co-worker? Give an example or scenario.



Please provide a unique type of game theory preferably instead of Mafia Game.


Text:

Organizational Behavior and Management 10th Edition

John Ivancevich, Robert Konopaske, Michael Matteson



Scenario:

Butterfly Corporation where Charles had worked for two yearsafter graduating. He liked his job but the firm was going throughsome rough times. Because the firm was losing money, Douglas, theCEO, set increasingly rigorous performance goals. Charles noticed alot of employees were grumbling about these unrealisticexpectations. He also heard rumors of quality control incidents andother problems.

One day, Charles was called into Douglas’s office. “Hello, Doug.You wanted to see me?” Charles asked.

“Yes, Charles. Come in.” Doug looked grim. After Charles satdown, he began to speak. “Look, you know about the tough times weare in. We are losing money left and right. So far, I’ve been ableto keep this company afloat by drastically making cuts and speedingup production. I guess in all this cost-cutting, there have beenproblems that have come up. A lot of people have called the hotlineto complain about ethical problems, such as employees cuttingcorners to make their quotas. Now I’ve got the board on myback.”

“I’m really sorry, Doug. How can I help?” Charles asked.

“Well, the board requested we perform an ethics audit to makesure everyone is complying with company regulations. As if we don’thave enough to worry about. This is only going to increase ourcosts. Anyway, I want you to lead the audit.”

Charles was stunned. “Me? But Doug, I’ve only been here for twoyears. Shouldn’t you choose a more experienced manager to leadthis?”

Doug shook his head. “We need all our managers to continue doingtheir jobs. I don’t have the time to pull one of them away fromtheir responsibilities just because the board wants us to do anethics audit.”

Charles agreed to lead the audit process. That night heresearched how to conduct an ethics audit. He promised to have arudimentary plan outlining how the ethics audit should be conductedon Doug’s desk for approval the next day. As he researched on theInternet, he became more excited. He spent hours forming objectivesfor the audit, determining the audit’s scope, and defining what hethought should be the firm’s ethical priorities. He created a planfor using focus groups of employees to see what the greatestconcerns were. He wanted to get other stakeholders involved,especially customers. Charles was interested in assessing theoverall corporate culture of the firm. Because Charles knew hisdata analysis skills were not good, he recommended bringing in acommittee of competent coworkers who had been in the organizationfor years and knew the system inside and out. He also developed alist of organizations Butterfly could hire to verify the resultsonce data was collected and analyzed.

The next day, Charles turned in his report and waited while Dougread through it. When finished, he looked up at Charles andfrowned. “Charles, I can see you put a lot of work into this.However, what you have recommended is not going to suit ourneeds.”

“What do you mean?” Charles asked.

“First off, I already told you, I don’t want to remove peoplefrom their jobs to work on this. We’re behind schedule as it is.Also, focus groups of employees and customer feedback? That’s goingto take up time and resources we cannot afford to lose. We’resupposed to be cutting costs, not throwing money . . . simply tocheck our results.” Doug asked that Charles “Revise this and bringit back to me tomorrow” he said.

Initial Posting

As Charles, what options do you have at this point? Your task isto create an ethical response to the task you have been given. Inyour response, consider what successful auditing processes shouldbe in place at Butterfly Corporation. Make recommendations as towhat should be done to encourage an ethical environment.

This analysis should be prepared as a Microsoft™ Word document.There is no minimum or maximum in terms of the word count; however,the response should explicitly address all required components ofthis discussion assignment. The document should be preparedconsistent with the APA writing style (6th edition) and reflecthigher level cognitive processing (analysis, synthesis, and orevaluation).

Hello, could I get some assistance summarizing this article for a discussion:

Read the articles and discuss the problems of Economic Inequality in the U.S.economy, summarize key points and post in the Discussions area:

Competition police crossing continents

Competition authorities are increasingly reaching beyond their country's borders

Feb 22nd, 2014

WHEN TWO AMERICAN presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, embarked on a trustbusting mission a century ago, they were taking government into a new policy area: competition. Industrialization was still relatively new, and any monopolies that had emerged, such as the British and Dutch East India companies, had been created by governments.

The robber-baron companies of the late 19th century were accused of using their industrial muscle to drive competitors out of business. Private monopolies, the argument ran, diminished the benefits of capitalism; by definition, the existence of a monopoly made it impossible for a free market to operate.

Since then, governments have generally had some kind of competition policy, though not necessarily a coherent one. Politicians have tried to juggle several different priorities, among them putting the government in control of "strategic" industries (a category that has always included defense but often also a range of other industries, from airlines to car manufacturing, power generation, and telecoms); shielding domestic businesses from foreign ownership or competition, and protecting consumers from price-gouging.

In the past two decades, a new concern has emerged: that monopolies may be restricting innovation. The technology industry seems to have been particularly prone to creating near-monopolies, from Microsoft in software to Amazon in retailing and Google in an internet search. This is due to network effects. Consumers gravitate to the dominant technology, either because it offers more products or because many of their friends are already using the network concerned. These monopolists, it is feared, will be slow to introduce new technologies that might cannibalize their existing business; and they will be so entrenched that new competitors will find it hard to get a foothold.

Microsoft bundled its Internet Explorer browser with its dominant Windows operating software on personal computers. America's Department of Justice saw this as an attempt to force Netscape, a rival browser, out of the market. In a long court case that began in 1998, Microsoft was initially ordered to break itself in two. This ruling was overturned on appeal and a less onerous settlement was arrived at.

At the time many commentators felt that the authorities had overreached themselves. Internet Explorer was provided free of charge, so it was hard to see how consumers were being harmed. But this is a tricky area. On the one hand, rapid technological change can cause once-dominant companies to lose their position very quickly if they do not adapt; look at Nokia's and BlackBerry's mobile-phone businesses. Some argue that if the market is capable of such adjustment, governments should not get involved. The fact that some consumers make the wrong decision some of the time is not the basis for intervention, as long as all consumers are not being ripped off,  says Simon Bishop of RBB Economics, a consultancy. On the other hand, such rapid change makes it hard to tell whether monopoly positions are being exploited, or whether a more competitive market would have produced more innovations.

Competition authorities have also had to rethink their role in cross-border deals. If one multinational takes over another, that might not create a monopoly in the country where the two groups have their headquarters, but it could do so in another country. A proposal for a merger between General Electric and Honeywell, announced in October 2000, was cleared by America's Department of Justice but blocked by the European Commission the following year. That objection appeared to herald a new era of transatlantic takeover disputes; in fact, it remains the only deal so far to have been cleared in America but blocked on the other side of the Atlantic.

However, there have been other instances of transatlantic disputes. In 2009 the European Commission imposed a 1.06 billion ($1.4 billion) fine on Intel, a chipmaker, after a complaint brought by an American rival, AMD. The ruling seemed to suggest that multinationals faced the prospect of double jeopardy because of inconsistent international rules.

We do it our way

There are some philosophical differences between Europe and America. Europe has a long tradition of state ownership of industry; even after privatization, many such companies retain dominant positions, at least in their national markets. In America, by contrast, market leaders have got there the hard way, by having superior technology or being more efficient. In Europe competition policy tends to be rules-based, with the European Commission issuing guidance for future mergers to follow; in America merger decisions tend to be hammered out in the courts, establishing legal precedent.

But multinationals also have to deal with competition policy in emerging markets. China is a particular challenge. The Chinese use competition policy to achieve other ends to keep out foreign firms or attack existing foreign businesses says, one expert. Latin American countries have tended to adopt the American model of competition policy, whereas eastern Europe has followed the example. Merger authorities from different countries have set up the International Competition Network to share the experience. Such efforts may reduce the double-jeopardy problems in international mergers, if only because rules may be applied more consistently.

In the longer term, the question is whether national competition policies will prove adaptable enough to cope with a globalized economy. It may make economic sense for global companies to exploit economies of scale and bring down prices for consumers, but national governments may be reluctant to accept the loss of control involved. In air travel, for example, fares have been reduced under pressure from low-cost airlines, but these newcomers are still being held back by policies that favor flagship carriers. If regulators in rich countries were to prove more zealous than their counterparts in emerging markets in restricting the size of multinationals, Western firms might be put at a competitive disadvantage.

New concerns for competition authorities are emerging all the time. Chris Walters, the acting chief economist of Britain's Office of Fair Trading (OFT), cites the practice of pay-for-delay, whereby a firm that holds a drug patent pays a generic manufacturer not to launch a rival drug to preserve the patent-holders monopoly profits. And David Currie, the chairman of the Competition and Markets Authority (which will take over from the OFT in April), recently pointed to a vast new potential problem, which he described as the growing collection, processing, and use of consumer-transaction data for commercial ends. This is proving an increasingly important source of competitive advantage; we need to be alert to the possibility that it will be an increasing source of consumer detriment.