加拿大essay代写：假释制度的研究分析
根据当局的说法，假释制度允许罪犯成功地、逐步地重新融入社会，并期望罪犯发展自己的自我价值和尊严，从而减少再次犯罪的机会。这是因为假释的全部重点是罪犯的改造。
一项研究发现，与无条件释放或没有假释进入社区的罪犯相比，假释罪犯再次犯罪的时间更长(Wan, Poynton, Doorn & Weatherburn, 2014)。这意味着那些被假释的人已经对具体的行为做出了承诺，并且避免了犯罪，他们更有可能在没有犯罪的情况下继续服刑。这一观点基本上是当局为受害者的康复所寻求的。然而，这并不是贝利和史蒂文的结果。
Kaufman(2013)讨论了报应和报复的区别，报应的目的是为受害者伸张正义，报复的目的是让犯罪者因其行为而遭受痛苦。在这种情况下，人的尊严要么与报复有关，要么与报应有关，而结果是两者中所选择的行动。如果选择报复并以使犯罪者受苦为目的，在宣布其为道德行为之前，可能必须研究其背景和情况。同样，报应也是如此，它只注重通过国家的法律制度提供正义。康德所描述的人的尊严再次与个人的自我价值相联系。在贝利和史蒂文的案件中，可以看出他们是惯犯，他们违反了当局在假释时对他们的信任。这是一种严重的违犯行为，罪犯没有获得自我价值，没有作为一个受人尊敬的公民融入社会，反而剥夺了自己有尊严的生活。从康德的角度和考夫曼的尊严观来看，违法者必须受到惩罚，而决定在于选择报复还是报复。
社会规范的形成是经过彻底的调查和衡量一个特定行为的利弊，然后被认为是普遍的道德行为，它被广泛认为是一个人在任何情况下的理想选择。罪犯必须有机会重新融入社会，过上有尊严的生活的观点是一种新颖的思想，反映了当局的报应观。当局试图通过更好地改变思维过程来遏制犯罪的威胁，而不是采取报复和让他们受苦。与报复或报应的联系要么是道德的，要么是不道德的，因为每种情况都是相关的，都有不同的信息;因此，关于道德的决定并不普遍相同。
从这个角度来看，当局的行为是正当的，因为他们看到了罪犯生活的改善，假释释放他们是一种更具报复性的行为，而不是一种报复行为。这一行动的重点是建立一个宽容的社会，学会接受罪犯作为人类，并尊重他们的尊严，当他们意识到他们的自我价值和改变他们的心态。这种行为在特定的情况下是合法的，但对社会的威胁仍然存在，而且是不可预测的，正如吉尔和萨拉的例子中所看到的那样，他们无缘无故地失去了生命。
加拿大essay代写 ：假释制度的研究分析
According to the authorities, a parole system allows a successful and gradual reintegration of the offender into the community and expects that the offender develops his own self-worth and dignity which reduced the chance of a repeat offense. This is because the entire focus of parole is to rehabilitation of the offender.
It was found in a research that offenders released on parole took longer to commit another offense when compared with offenders who were released unconditionally or without parole into the community (Wan, Poynton, Doorn & Weatherburn, 2014). This implies that those who are on parole have made a commitment for specific conduct and avoiding an offense are more likely to stay without an offense. This view is fundamentally what is sought after by the rehabilitation of victims by the authorities. However, it was not the result in case of Bayley and Steven.
Kaufman (2013) talks about the difference between retribution and revenge, where retribution is aimed at delivering justice to the victim and revenge is aimed at making the offender suffer for his or her deeds. In such a scenario, human dignity is either associated with revenge or retribution and the consequences are what the action is selected of the two. If revenge is selected and aimed at making the offender suffer, the context and the circumstances might have to be studied before declaring it as moral. Similarly, it is the same with retribution which only focuses on providing justice through the legal system of the country. Human dignity as described by Kant is again associated with the self-worth of the individual. In case of Bayley and Steven, it is seen that they are repeat offenders and they have breached the trust of the authorities that was placed on them while releasing them on parole. This is a serious breach and instead of gaining self-worth and integrating in the community as a respectable citizen, the offenders have denied themselves a dignified life. Looking at Kant’s angle and Kaufman’s idea of dignity, the offenders must be punished and the decision rests in selecting either revenge or retribution.
Social norms of the society forms after thorough investigation and measuring the pros and cons of a particular action which is then regarded as a universally moral one and it is broadly considered to be the ideal choice of a human in all circumstances. The perspective that offenders must be given a chance to integrate again in the community and lead a dignified life is a novel thought and is reflecting the retributive insight of the authorities. The authorities try to curb the menace of offense by changing the thought process for the better rather than taking revenge and making them suffer. The association with revenge or retribution is either moral or immoral because every situation is contextual and has a different message; hence the decision about its morality is not universally the same.
The perspective justifies the actions of the authorities because they have seen improvements in the lives of the offenders and releasing them on parole is a more retributive action than a revengeful one. This action is focussed on forming a tolerant society which learns to accept offenders as humans and honour them their dignity when they realise their self-worth and change their mind-set. The action is legitimate in specific cases, but the threat to society remains and is unpredictable as seen in the case of Jill and Sarah who lost their lives for no reason of theirs.
