I have attached photos of the assignment rules

Can you please answer the last box? Noah forgot to. Thanks

1) Choose 1 forensic case study of interest to you from a forensic science journal, book, blog, media source, etc. a. Examples that cannot be used: i. O.J. Simpson ii. Dennis “BTK Killer” Rader iii. Ted Bundy iv. Dean “The Candy Man” Corll v. Joseph “The Shoemaker” and Michael Kallinger 2) Create 10+ PowerPoint slides for your case study. The presentation should include the main points of the case, crime scene photos (if available), and the conclusions of the case. 3) I want the focus of your PowerPoint to be how forensics helped solve the case. Explain to me what forensic evidence was found and used to solve the case. 4) Include the reference for the study found, which should include the article’s title, author, journal title, year, and inclusive page numbers. If you are citing from a source that is not a journal article, make sure you are citing the source thorough enough for me to trace it.

Assignment 2: Crime in the United States using the four demographics discuss gender, age, race, socioeconomics as your focus when you compare and contrast cities – Please create a slideshow/powerpoint presentation with audio and or video narration. (audio is sufficient). You may also use media player or any recording slide show compatible with brightspace.Do not just read your slides rather explain what your research indicates. Use charts, graphs, pictures, statistics, etc. Each slide should orally present your topic explaining fully each point. Be sure that it is your voice (no AI permitted). Each slide should have audio narration so that is follows each slide. Do not include a separate link for audio and powerpoint it should be one link. Microsoft Office is available for free with your SUNY Orange email account and has powerpoint for downloading. Be sure to use the record audio or video option. If you have difficulty and cannot figure out how to insert audio, please check youtube or contact tech support for assistance.

This assignment supports the following lesson objectives:

• Explain how statistics are gathered for major crimes.
• Identify sources of crimes statistics.
• Compare and contrast Part I offenses vs. Part II offenses.
• Examine four key demographic factors (race, age, gender, socioeconomics) in the collection of crime data. I am not looking on factors such as police presence etc. Stick to these four groups discuss each one completely. Be sure to explain how each affects crime in your city.

Assignment Overview

• This assignment explores the differences in crime statistics in two similarly-sized cities.

Deliverables

• A 12-15 slide oral powerpoint presentation comparing crime statistic,s in two cities. Be sure to completely answer the questions posed. Include research in your final slide. Sources are not included in the length of your report. Your powerpoint or slide presentation should be visually and orally appealing to the viewer. Use charts, graphs, pictures and fully explain all statistics, crimes, differences, compare and contrast data and explain fully. (ie: a visual map of your chosen city with statistics on your slide)

Activity Details

Perform the following tasks:

• Step 1: Pick a crime and find statistics about it in your home town and one other city of comparable size.
• Pick one of the following crimes:
• Personal/Violent Crimes
• Murder
• Forcible Rape
• Robbery
• Aggravated assault
• Property Crimes
• Burglary
• Larceny
• Motor Vehicle Theft
• Arson
• Find statistics for this crime in your home town and in one other city of similar population size. As part of your research, examine the four key demographic factors (race, gender, socioeconomics, age) in the collection of crime data.
• Step 2: Create a powerpoint with audio or video narration explaining key points (use charts, graphs, pictures etc).
• compare statistics from the different bureaus and address the following questions:
• What are the differences?
• Why might they be different?
• Have the statistics changed over time?
• What are the reasons for changes?
• Discuss how the specific demographic groups may influence crime in your city or the other chosen city.
• Step 3: Save and submit your assignment.
• When you have completed the assignment, save a copy for yourself in an easily accessible place and submit a copy to your instructor using the dropbox.

If

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2017-crime-statistics

The evidence in the movie/show must be pertaining to DNA evidence.

The theories that need to be referred to per the instructions can be some of these: – labeling theory – subculture theories/ delinquency theories – cohen’s theory – subculture of violence theory – the southerness hypothesis

In the wake of September 11, 2001, President Bush introduced the bill Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, better known as the USA Patriot Act. This bill met little opposition in Congress and was passed into law. Since then, the Act has received great scrutiny and criticism by lawmakers, civil liberties organizations, and citizens alike. While there have been some amendments to the original law, it mostly remains intact, despite the criticisms. Case Assignment After reviewing the background materials, answer the following questions in a 3- to 4-page essay. Compare and contrast the USA Patriot Act with Britains CONTEST and Canadas Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001. What are the concerns regarding civil liberties in relation to the Patriot Act? Be sure to give specific examples. How do you balance national security and civil liberties in an ethical manner? There is no one answer to this, but you must support your discussion with citations from the background materials. You may also identify other reliable sources to use in addition to the background materials. Assignment Expectations Length: This Case Assignment should be 4-6 pages, not counting the cover page and references. Assessment and Grading: Your work will be assessed based on the performance assessment rubric that is linked within the course. Review it before you begin working on the assignment. Source Citations in the Body of the Paper: Cite sources in the body of the paper to provide supporting evidence for main points and definitive statements; to identify where you found your information; and to give credit to those whose ideas you are using. References: Use reliable, authoritative, and credible sources as your references, such as, professional and established periodicals; peer-reviewed journal articles are preferred. If you use the internet to find articles, make sure the sources are credible. Wikipedia is not an acceptable source. Originality of Content: Quoted material should not exceed 10% of the total paper (since the focus of these assignments is critical thinking). Direct quotes are rarely necessary; students who use them when unnecessary will forfeit credit for critical thinking. For verbatim/direct quotes, enclose the quoted text in quotation marks and then cite the author, date, and location within the source (i.e., page number, paragraph number, or time stamp). For paraphrased ideas, you must give credit to the original author in an in-text citation. Organization: Include a Cover Page on your paper. Use headings and subheadings to organize your paper. Grammar and Spelling: Assignments are expected to adhere to standard guidelines of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and sentence syntax. Points may be deducted if grammar and spelling impact clarity. Writing Help: Please take advantage of the writing help resources available in the Student Resources Tab on your Trident Home Page. On this tab you will find numerous APA and Writing-Style Guides. Strive to achieve the following elements of scholarly writing: Relevance: All content is connected to the question. Precision: Specific questions are addressed; content is specific and accurate. Depth of discussion: Present and integrate points that lead to deeper issues. Breadth: Multiple references, multiple perspectives and factors considered. Evidence: Points are well-supported with facts, statistics, and references. Logic: Content makes sense and is supported by premises or factual information. Clarity: Writing is concise and understandable. Objectivity: Avoid use of first person and subjective bias. Denney, I. (2023). The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001: A case study analysis. Youngstown State University: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 31019215. Available in the Trident Online Library. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001: A Case Study Analysis – ProQuest Financial Crimes Enforcement Network USA PATRIOT Act.

Using the textbook Understanding Homeland Security by Gus Martin, 2024, Explain how state and local law enforcement agencies adjusted their operations after the September 11 terrorist attacks and assess the role of local police in providing frontline response leadership during homeland security incidents. In APA format around 925 words with at least two references. The source of your information and facts needs to be properly cited within the essay with an in-text short citation, i.e., (author’s last name, year, the correct page number), and with APA formatted references/bibliographies at the end. You also need to use a single page number where the concept that you used is located. Additionally, your essay structure should consist of an introduction (4-5 sentences), body containing at least 2-3 paragraphs each with a good 4-5 sentences, and a conclusion.

This order is to revise an already written essay.

The writer must have a copy of the book, Understanding Homeland Security 4th edition (2024).

6 page essay instructions in the pictures I sent

Application Paper

• Due Apr 5 by 11:59 pm Points 100 Submitting a file upload

Assignment Overview:

For this assignment, you will need to apply your knowledge of 3 criminological theories to a contemporary crime. [Please limit your selection to crimes that have taken place during the last 10 years. Please do NOT write your paper on Erik or Lyle Menendez, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ruby Franke, Alex Murdaugh, or Gabby Petito].

Application papers should be 10 pages in length and should include the following:

1. A brief description of the crime you have selected [~1 page]

• What type of crime will you be examining?
• What do we know about the circumstances surrounding the crime?
• What do we know about the perpetrator?
• What do we know about the target or victim?

1. A detailed description of how each theory (or theorist) would explain the crime [2-3 pages per theory]

• What does the theory/theorist suggest is the cause of crime? What additional factors (if any) does it consider? [Be sure to name & define the key concepts of each theory in your explanation. Never assume that we will know what you mean]
• Which components of the theory are clearly evident in the case? [Note: This should be the focus of your paper. Please draw upon specific text, quotes, or illustrative scenes to demonstrate each point]
• Which components of the theory (if any) are missing from the case?

1. A comparison of the three theories [~2 pages]

• Which theory does the best job at explaining the crime? [You MUST pick one – no ties here]
• Which aspects of the crime or criminal does each theory do a good job of accounting for?
• Which aspects of the crime or criminal does each theory fail to account for?

1. In-text citations and a reference section (using APA or ASA style guidelines) for all sources used to complete this assignment [~1 page]

Papers should use 12pt font and grammatically correct, complete sentences.

Selecting the Theories:

When selecting which theories to write about, you should choose from the following:

• Cohen & Felson’s Routine Activities Theory
• Durkheims Theory of Modernization & Anomie
• Sampsons Theory of Collective Efficacy
• Aker’s Differential Reinforcement Theory
• Athens Theory of Violentization
• Agnews General Strain Theory
• Hirschis Social Control Theory
• Gottfredson and Hirschis General Theory of Crime
• Lemert’s Labeling Theory

Please note: The theories you select do not all need to “fit” the crime. It is okay (perhaps even expected) that at least one theory will not work. What I will be looking for is whether you can explain why it does not fit.

Rubric

Application Paper (2026)

Application Paper (2026)

CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Description of the Crime

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent (A)

The paper clearly identifies all relevant details requested in the assignment prompt.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good (B)/Developing (C)

The paper provides some requested details but is missing others. The description of the crime is rambling/unclear or too short/vague.

3 to >1.0 pts

Poor (D)

The paper is missing most relevant details and/or fails to adhere to the requirements put forth in the assignment prompt.

1 to >0 pts

No Marks (F)

The paper is missing an explanation of the crime.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Application of Theory #1

20 to >18.0 pts

Excellent (A)

The paper provides a clear, in-depth description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers specific, concrete evidence from the artifact to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime, and it acknowledges whether there are any elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

18 to >14.0 pts

Good (B)/Developing (C)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or underdeveloped description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Some points were supported with relevant facts/examples while others lacked any support. And, it only partially acknowledges the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

14 to >11.0 pts

Poor (D)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence (if any) to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Major points were not supported with relevant facts/examples. And, the paper clearly fails to acknowledge the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

11 to >0 pts

Unacceptable (F)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers no evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime and/or the application is inaccurate or inappropriate.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Application of Theory #2

20 to >18.0 pts

Excellent (A)

The paper provides a clear, in-depth description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers specific, concrete evidence from the artifact to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime, and it acknowledges whether there are any elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

18 to >14.0 pts

Good (B)/Developing (C)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or underdeveloped description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Some points were supported with relevant facts/examples while others lacked any support. And, it only partially acknowledges the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

14 to >11.0 pts

Poor (D)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence (if any) to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Major points were not supported with relevant facts/examples. And, the paper clearly fails to acknowledge the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

11 to >0 pts

Unacceptable (F)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers no evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime and/or the application is inaccurate or inappropriate.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Application of Theory #3

20 to >18.0 pts

Excellent (A)

The paper provides a clear, in-depth description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers specific, concrete evidence from the artifact to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime, and it acknowledges whether there are any elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

18 to >14.0 pts

Good (B)/Developing (C)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or underdeveloped description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Some points were supported with relevant facts/examples while others lacked any support. And, it only partially acknowledges the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

14 to >11.0 pts

Poor (D)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence (if any) to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Major points were not supported with relevant facts/examples. And, the paper clearly fails to acknowledge the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

11 to >0 pts

Unacceptable (F)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers no evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime and/or the application is inaccurate or inappropriate.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Discussion of Strengths & Weaknesses

20 to >18.0 pts

Excellent (A)

The paper clearly indicates which of the three theories the author believes provides the best explanation of the crime. And, the author’s position is justified by demonstrating how the strengths and weaknesses of said theory outweigh the strengths and weaknesses of the other two theories.

18 to >14.0 pts

Good (B)/Developing (C)

The paper indicates which of the three theories the author believes provides the best explanation of the crime, and the author’s position is (for the most part) justified by demonstrating how the strengths and weaknesses of said theory outweigh the strengths and weaknesses of the other two theories. Some points may be weak or unclear.

14 to >11.0 pts

Poor (D)

The paper fails to indicate which of the three theories the author believes provides the best explanation of the crime, and/or the author’s justification is weak or incomplete.

11 to >0 pts

Unacceptable (F)

The paper fails to indicate which of the three theories the author believes provides the best explanation of the crime, and/or the author’s justification is lacking in that it fails to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of all three theories (if any).

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

References/Citations

10 to >8.0 pts

Excellent (A)

Paper includes 3+ academic, peer-reviewed references. All sources are reputable and cited using correct formatting (i.e., using APA or ASA citation guidelines)

8 to >7.0 pts

Good (B)/Developing (C)

Paper only includes 1-2 academic, peer-reviewed references, and/or citations are incorrect or incomplete.

7 to >5.0 pts

Poor (D)

Paper includes no academic, peer-reviewed references. Other sources are unreliable or missing or improperly referenced.

5 to >0 pts

Unacceptable (F)

Paper includes no references OR references are unreliable, missing, or improperly referenced.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Execution/Quality of Writing

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent (A)

The paper is well-organized, and all statements and responses are appropriate in language, well structured, and grammatically correct. The paper clearly adheres to all guidelines outlined in the assignment prompt.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good (B)/Developing (C)

The paper is somewhat organized, and most statements are well structured and grammatically correct. However, there are some spelling/grammatical errors throughout the paper. The paper adheres to most of the guidelines outlined in the assignment prompt, but it could use additional editing/tightening.

3 to >1.0 pts

Poor (D)

The paper is poorly organized, and there are numerous spelling/grammatical errors. The author’s writing is confusing/hard to follow, and the paper fails to adhere to the guidelines outlined in the assignment prompt.

1 to >0 pts

Unacceptable (F)

The paper was written in part or in full by another person or with generative AI.

5 pts

Total Points: 100