What is the process of reflecting?
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →What is the process of reflecting?
In-depth study guidance and analytical solution covering Business Ethics Project.
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Full assignment prompt and step-by-step guidance are included in the downloadable solution file.
In-depth study guidance and analytical solution covering Nurse.
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Full assignment prompt and step-by-step guidance are included in the downloadable solution file.
What is legal and ethical issues?
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →What is legal and ethical issues?
In-depth study guidance and analytical solution covering Class.
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Full assignment prompt and step-by-step guidance are included in the downloadable solution file.
## **Overview** In this final part of your course project, you outline plans for testing your application. ## **Preparation** Consider your textbook readings and Internet research on application testing procedures and their associated tools and the following testing areas to research. You will ultim…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →## **Overview**
In this final part of your course project, you outline plans for testing your application.
## **Preparation**
Consider your textbook readings and Internet research on application testing procedures and their associated tools and the following testing areas to research. You will ultimately choose 3 of these areas to focus on in this assignment.
– **Functionality:** Ensures the application works as intended. This includes testing all features and user interactions to verify performance benchmarks are met.
– **Performance:** Evaluate the application's speed, responsiveness, and stability under various conditions. This includes load testing, stress testing, and scalability testing.
– **Security:** Identifies vulnerabilities and ensures the application is secure from threats such as data breaches and unauthorized access.
– **Usability:** Assesses the application's user interface and overall user experience to ensure it is intuitive and easy to use.
– **Compatibility:** Checks the application's performance across different devices, browsers, and operating systems.
– **Acceptance:** Validates the application against user requirements and ensures it meets the criteria for release.
## **Instructions**
Choose 3 testing areas from the list in the preparation section as top testing priorities for your application. Do the following **for each** in a Word document:
1. Justify the choice of an appropriate testing method using 3 compelling rationales.
2. Describe 2 appropriate tools/techniques for each testing method. Support your choices with professional references.
3. Briefly describe what specifically will be tested and how the test is conducted. You might consider areas such as preparation, critical steps, timeframes, benchmarks, parameters, sequencing, performance, personnel required, processes and procedures that should be observed, data collection and analysis, et cetera.
This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards (SWS). The library is your home for SWS assistance, including citations and formatting. Please refer to the [Library site](https://library.strayer.edu/sws) for all support. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
– Create an evaluation plan to measure how an application meets design requirements and user needs.
Consider a hypothetical or real-world scenario in which a healthcare organization is implementing a new telemedicine platform aimed at improving access to care for an emerging disease (e.g., mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic). Analyze the following components: **Impact on Access to…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Consider a hypothetical or real-world scenario in which a healthcare organization is implementing a new telemedicine platform aimed at improving access to care for an emerging disease (e.g., mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic). Analyze the following components:
**Impact on Access to Care**:
– Discuss how the telemedicine platform is expected to improve access to care for the target population.
– Consider factors such as geographic barriers, transportation issues, and the convenience of remote consultations.
#### **Document Type/Template**
– Word Document
see attaches **files (2)** – ## repliesinstruction1.docx – ## Replies.docx **## repliesinstruction1.docx** **Discussion Ethics in Public Administration reply Assignment Instructions** you will post replies of 200–250 words each to 2 classmates’ threads. Each reply must be unique and must integrate i…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →see attaches
**files (2)**
– ## repliesinstruction1.docx
– ## Replies.docx
**## repliesinstruction1.docx**
**Discussion Ethics in Public Administration reply Assignment Instructions**
you will post replies of 200–250 words each to 2 classmates’ threads. Each reply must be unique and must integrate ideas (and citations) from the required reading. Merely posting the same reply in 2 places is not sufficient. The original thread must incorporate ideas and citations from all of the required readings and presentations for that Module: Week. It must also address statecraft as part of a meaningful discussion of effective statesmanship and it must include citations from at least two additional scholarly sources. The reply posts must also integrate ideas and citations from the required readings and presentations for the Module: Week, as appropriate, and at least two scholarly sources.
**Replies:**
· 2 replies
· 200-250 words per reply
· Ideas and citations from required reading and presentations from the Module: Week, as appropriate
· Ideas and citations from two scholarly sources per reply
Remember that the art of communication is in many ways the lifeblood of effective political leadership. Everything you write—every paper, post, and email—creates or reinforces an impression of you. Begin to cultivate the communication skills of the statesman and stateswoman—the ability to logically and persuasively speak the truth with compassion and respect. Each response post must include new research and analysis, and must build upon the ideas communicated in the original post. Thus, they must go beyond merely restating and affirming what a classmate has said and instead bring in more depth, research and analysis. Accordingly, each response post must include citations from the required reading and presentations.
Responding to a classmate’s thread requires both the addition of new ideas and analysis. A particular point made by the classmate must be addressed and built upon by your analysis in order
**to move the conversation forward**. Thus, the reply is a rigorous assignment that requires you to build upon the thread to develop deeper and more thorough discussion of the ideas introduced. As such, replies that merely affirm, restate or unprofessionally quarrel with the previous thread(s) and fail to make a valuable, substantive contribution to the discussion will receive appropriate point deductions.
**## Replies.docx**
**Tory baley**
**Discussion Thread: Statesmanship, Institutional Legitimacy, and the Ethics of Power**
Secretary Pete Hegseth’s September 30, 2025 address to senior military leaders presents a modern case study for evaluating statesmanship in public administration. In the speech, Hegseth outlines a vision for reshaping the Department of Defense into what he calls a renewed “War Department” culture. Several statements in the speech illustrate the tone and direction of this leadership approach. At one point Hegseth declares that the United States must “untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country,” and later states that the military must be prepared to deliver “overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy” (Hegseth, 2025). In another passage, he dismisses traditional constraints by stating that the military will no longer fight wars with “stupid rules of engagement.” These statements present a leadership style rooted in aggressive authority and operational freedom. The question for public administration is whether such rhetoric reflects the type of institutional leadership traditionally associated with American statesmanship.
Benjamin Franklin’s understanding of leadership focused heavily on the cultivation of civic virtue and moral discipline. Franklin argued that republican institutions depend on leaders who demonstrate moderation, prudence, and self-governance (Franklin, 1791/2004). From Franklin’s perspective, leadership rhetoric plays an important role in shaping the ethical culture of institutions. If leaders emphasize unrestrained violence or dismiss institutional constraints, Franklin might question whether such language cultivates the civic discipline required to sustain a republic. Franklin’s statesmanship sought to elevate the moral character of both leaders and citizens, suggesting that leadership language should reinforce ethical restraint rather than celebrate the exercise of force. William Howard Taft offers a different but complementary lens. Taft’s statesmanship was expressed through institutional reform rather than rhetorical mobilization. As Chief Justice, Taft strengthened the legitimacy and efficiency of the federal judiciary by reorganizing the court system and supporting the Judges’ Bill of 1925 (Post, 2012). Taft’s leadership emphasized stability, procedural legitimacy, and administrative coherence. When compared to Taft’s approach, Hegseth’s speech raises a question about whether sweeping cultural directives delivered through rhetorical force strengthen the institutional foundations of the Department of Defense or instead risk destabilizing established norms of governance.
Thomas Jefferson introduces yet another dimension to this discussion. Jefferson faced a profound constitutional dilemma when he authorized the Louisiana Purchase despite believing that the Constitution did not explicitly grant the president authority to acquire foreign territory. Jefferson ultimately accepted the decision as necessary for the long-term security of the republic, even though it conflicted with his own constitutional philosophy (Ellis, 1997). Jefferson reportedly expressed deep personal unease about the decision, recognizing the moral and constitutional tension it created. Political theorist Michael Walzer later described this type of dilemma as the problem of “dirty hands,” in which leaders sometimes take morally troubling actions for the perceived benefit of the state while bearing the ethical burden of those decisions (Walzer, 1973). Jefferson’s internal struggle contrasts sharply with the tone of certainty and bravado expressed in Hegseth’s speech, highlighting different approaches to the exercise of political power. The practical implications of this leadership style can also be observed in recent U.S. maritime counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean. Reporting by the Associated Press indicates that U.S. naval forces have destroyed more than one hundred cartel “go-fast boats” suspected of transporting narcotics from Venezuelan waters toward Central America and the United States (Associated Press, 2025). These operations have sparked debate among legal scholars and national security analysts regarding the scope of executive authority and the proportional use of military force in counter-narcotics operations (Chesney, 2012; O’Connell, 2010). When viewed alongside Hegseth’s call to loosen operational constraints, these policies illustrate how leadership rhetoric may influence bureaucratic implementation of national security strategy.
From a public administration perspective, the central issue is not simply whether these operations are tactically effective but whether they strengthen the legitimacy of the institutions responsible for carrying them out. Franklin emphasized civic virtue, Taft emphasized institutional reform, and Jefferson acknowledged the moral burden of difficult decisions. Together, these examples suggest that statesmanship involves balancing decisive action with ethical restraint and institutional stewardship. Hegseth’s speech therefore provides a contemporary case for examining whether modern leadership rhetoric aligns with these historical traditions of American statesmanship or represents a departure from them.
A Christian worldview adds another analytical lens to this discussion of statesmanship and the ethical exercise of power. Scripture recognizes that governing authorities may legitimately wield coercive force to protect the public. The Apostle Paul writes that rulers “do not bear the sword for no reason,” but are servants of justice tasked with restraining wrongdoing (Romans 13:4, New International Version). Within Christian political thought, this passage has long been interpreted as affirming the legitimacy of government authority in matters of defense and law enforcement. War, therefore, is not inherently immoral when undertaken in circumstances of extreme self-defense or protection of the innocent. At the same time, the biblical tradition places significant emphasis on humility and restraint when exercising power. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus warns, “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52, New International Version). The statement occurs when Peter attempts to defend Jesus during the arrest in Gethsemane by striking a Roman soldier with a sword. Jesus rebukes the act and restores the wounded man, emphasizing that reliance on violence carries profound moral consequences. The significance of this passage is not that all uses of force are illegitimate, but that violence pursued without restraint or moral discipline ultimately produces destructive consequences for both individuals and institutions.
Applied to contemporary leadership rhetoric, this biblical warning introduces a moral tension when leaders frame military power primarily through domination or unrestrained lethality. Statements in Secretary Hegseth’s speech emphasizing the need to “untie the hands of our warfighters” and unleash “overwhelming and punishing violence” highlight the aggressive exercise of state power (Hegseth, 2025). While decisive military force may sometimes be necessary in warfare, Christian ethics cautions that leaders must exercise such authority with prudence, humility, and moral accountability. The warning that “those who take the sword will perish by the sword” reminds political leaders that power exercised without ethical restraint risks undermining the very institutions and moral legitimacy it seeks to defend. This biblical perspective reinforces the statesmanship traditions reflected in the earlier examples of Franklin, Taft, and Jefferson. Franklin emphasized the cultivation of civic virtue and moderation among leaders and citizens. Taft strengthened institutional legitimacy through procedural reform and disciplined governance. Jefferson recognized the moral burden attached to difficult political decisions and reportedly experienced personal unease when expanding executive authority through the Louisiana Purchase (Ellis, 1997). Each example illustrates that leadership within a republic requires not only the ability to act decisively but also the wisdom to recognize the ethical weight of that power. From this perspective, the biblical warning concerning the sword serves as a reminder that legitimate authority must always be balanced by humility, moral restraint, and responsibility for the consequences of political decisions. In the context of contemporary national security policy, the challenge of statesmanship lies not merely in demonstrating strength but in exercising power in ways that sustain institutional legitimacy, moral credibility, and public trust.
**References**
Associated Press. (2025, October 8). U.S. Navy sinks more than 100 cartel “go-fast boats” in Caribbean crackdown on drug trafficking. Associated Press.
Chesney, R. (2012). Military-intelligence convergence and the law of the Title 10/Title 50 debate.
_Journal of National Security Law & Policy, 5_(2), 539–629.
Ellis, J. J. (1997).
_American sphinx: The character of Thomas Jefferson_. Vintage Books.
Franklin, B. (2004).
_The autobiography of Benjamin Franklin_. Yale University Press. (Original work published 1791)
Hegseth, P. (2025, September 30). Address to general and flag officers at Quantico, Virginia.
O’Connell, M. E. (2010).
_The international law of drone warfare_. American Society of International Law.
Post, R. (2012).
_The Taft Court: Making law for a divided nation_. Cambridge University Press.
Walzer, M. (1973). Political action: The problem of dirty hands.
_Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2_(2), 160–180.
The Holy Bible, New International Version. (2011). Zondervan. (Original work published 1978)
Read Less
**Nathen Lowis**
In Proverbs 28:10 (NLT), the scripture reads, "Those who lead good people along an evil path will fall into their own trap, but the honest will inherit good things". By now, most of us have heard the principle of “to whom much is given, much is expected.” I believe no job embodies that more than the President of the United States. Having the honor to hold that title comes with responsibility, strong leadership qualities, and selflessness. These qualities are summed up as statesmanship. Negative is always easier to investigate than positive unfortunately, so with that being said I present to you a look into January 6th.
The insurrection of January 6th will always be remembered as a day of infamy in American History. That morning started with President Trump delivering a speech at the “Save America” rally in Washington, DC. According to the president’s schedule, after speaking at the rally, he would then head to a meeting to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the presidential election. During this speech Trump stated that, “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Statements made similar to this are what led many to accuse President Trump of inciting the insurrection that would soon follow the rally. “It is also important to recognize that the context in which Trump spoke was very different from that of his previous speeches. Before, Trump was speaking in a bid to become President, as President or to stay as President, and he was talking in general terms about enemies, the need to defeat them, and the need for people to support him in defeating them. By contrast, the 6th January speech was oriented to preventing a very specific event—the certification of the 2020 election result by Congress. Moreover, it required direct action by followers, not just support for Trump himself” (Ntontis et al, 2024). While it was never proven by the court of law, many believe the actions that followed Trump’s speech led to the violence on Capitol Hill. “Even before Trump finished his address shortly after 1:00 pm, and just as the joint session of Congress was being convened, a mob of his supporters—including members of right-wing extremist organizations, such as the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and the Three Percenters, as well as self-identified adherents of the QAnon conspiracy theory—pushed through fences at the western perimeter of the Capitol grounds, forcing Capitol Police officers to retreat to additional barricades closer to the building” (Duignan, 2026). The mob would soon grow to well over 1,000, with the rioters eventually succeeding in breaching the Capital building. During the chaos, members of Congress had to be rushed to safety, law enforcement were beaten by the angry protesters, and eight people tragically lost their lives.
“Statesmanship is exceptional leadership characterized by vision, courage, compassion, effectiveness, and civility. It does not expect perfection but assumes competence and demands excellence. Vision is the ability to see beyond the rush of daily events and to develop and execute a long term strategy. Courage has been called “grace under pressure” and demands steps that may be unpopular, with benefits that are not immediately evident” (Shaw, n.d.). Even though it was never proven that he initiated the riot, his leadership ability is very questionable. According to Fishcher’s description, I believe that Trump would be classified as a charismatic leader. It has been throughout his presidency, the ability to motivate people (Whether negatively or positive). Fischer (2010) states the issue with this leadership is “in becoming “larger than life”, is that they can also become immune to accountability and therefore can become prone to abusing power.” January 6th proved that not all statesmanship is good statesmanship.
References
Duignan, B. (2026, February 2).
_January 6 U.S. Capitol Attack_. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/January-6-U-S-Capitol-attack
Fischer, Kahlib, "A Biblical-Covenantal Perspective on Organizational Behavior & Leadership" (2010). Faculty Publications and Presentations. 523. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/gov_fac_pubs/523
Ntontis, E., Jurstakova, K., Neville, F., Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2024). A warrant for violence? An analysis of Donald Trump’s speech before the US Capitol attack.
_The British Journal of Social Psychology._,
_63_(1), 3–19.
[https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12679Links to an external site.](https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12679)
Shaw, J. (n.d.).
_What a statesman would do | Paul Simon Public Policy Institute | SIU_. Retrieved March 12, 2026, from https://paulsimoninstitute.siu.edu/intiatives/what-a-statesman-would-do.php
**## Replies.docx**
**Tory baley**
**Discussion Thread: Statesmanship, Institutional Legitimacy, and the Ethics of Power**
Secretary Pete Hegseth’s September 30, 2025 address to senior military leaders presents a modern case study for evaluating statesmanship in public administration. In the speech, Hegseth outlines a vision for reshaping the Department of Defense into what he calls a renewed “War Department” culture. Several statements in the speech illustrate the tone and direction of this leadership approach. At one point Hegseth declares that the United States must “untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country,” and later states that the military must be prepared to deliver “overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy” (Hegseth, 2025). In another passage, he dismisses traditional constraints by stating that the military will no longer fight wars with “stupid rules of engagement.” These statements present a leadership style rooted in aggressive authority and operational freedom. The question for public administration is whether such rhetoric reflects the type of institutional leadership traditionally associated with American statesmanship.
Benjamin Franklin’s understanding of leadership focused heavily on the cultivation of civic virtue and moral discipline. Franklin argued that republican institutions depend on leaders who demonstrate moderation, prudence, and self-governance (Franklin, 1791/2004). From Franklin’s perspective, leadership rhetoric plays an important role in shaping the ethical culture of institutions. If leaders emphasize unrestrained violence or dismiss institutional constraints, Franklin might question whether such language cultivates the civic discipline required to sustain a republic. Franklin’s statesmanship sought to elevate the moral character of both leaders and citizens, suggesting that leadership language should reinforce ethical restraint rather than celebrate the exercise of force. William Howard Taft offers a different but complementary lens. Taft’s statesmanship was expressed through institutional reform rather than rhetorical mobilization. As Chief Justice, Taft strengthened the legitimacy and efficiency of the federal judiciary by reorganizing the court system and supporting the Judges’ Bill of 1925 (Post, 2012). Taft’s leadership emphasized stability, procedural legitimacy, and administrative coherence. When compared to Taft’s approach, Hegseth’s speech raises a question about whether sweeping cultural directives delivered through rhetorical force strengthen the institutional foundations of the Department of Defense or instead risk destabilizing established norms of governance.
Thomas Jefferson introduces yet another dimension to this discussion. Jefferson faced a profound constitutional dilemma when he authorized the Louisiana Purchase despite believing that the Constitution did not explicitly grant the president authority to acquire foreign territory. Jefferson ultimately accepted the decision as necessary for the long-term security of the republic, even though it conflicted with his own constitutional philosophy (Ellis, 1997). Jefferson reportedly expressed deep personal unease about the decision, recognizing the moral and constitutional tension it created. Political theorist Michael Walzer later described this type of dilemma as the problem of “dirty hands,” in which leaders sometimes take morally troubling actions for the perceived benefit of the state while bearing the ethical burden of those decisions (Walzer, 1973). Jefferson’s internal struggle contrasts sharply with the tone of certainty and bravado expressed in Hegseth’s speech, highlighting different approaches to the exercise of political power. The practical implications of this leadership style can also be observed in recent U.S. maritime counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean. Reporting by the Associated Press indicates that U.S. naval forces have destroyed more than one hundred cartel “go-fast boats” suspected of transporting narcotics from Venezuelan waters toward Central America and the United States (Associated Press, 2025). These operations have sparked debate among legal scholars and national security analysts regarding the scope of executive authority and the proportional use of military force in counter-narcotics operations (Chesney, 2012; O’Connell, 2010). When viewed alongside Hegseth’s call to loosen operational constraints, these policies illustrate how leadership rhetoric may influence bureaucratic implementation of national security strategy.
From a public administration perspective, the central issue is not simply whether these operations are tactically effective but whether they strengthen the legitimacy of the institutions responsible for carrying them out. Franklin emphasized civic virtue, Taft emphasized institutional reform, and Jefferson acknowledged the moral burden of difficult decisions. Together, these examples suggest that statesmanship involves balancing decisive action with ethical restraint and institutional stewardship. Hegseth’s speech therefore provides a contemporary case for examining whether modern leadership rhetoric aligns with these historical traditions of American statesmanship or represents a departure from them.
A Christian worldview adds another analytical lens to this discussion of statesmanship and the ethical exercise of power. Scripture recognizes that governing authorities may legitimately wield coercive force to protect the public. The Apostle Paul writes that rulers “do not bear the sword for no reason,” but are servants of justice tasked with restraining wrongdoing (Romans 13:4, New International Version). Within Christian political thought, this passage has long been interpreted as affirming the legitimacy of government authority in matters of defense and law enforcement. War, therefore, is not inherently immoral when undertaken in circumstances of extreme self-defense or protection of the innocent. At the same time, the biblical tradition places significant emphasis on humility and restraint when exercising power. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus warns, “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52, New International Version). The statement occurs when Peter attempts to defend Jesus during the arrest in Gethsemane by striking a Roman soldier with a sword. Jesus rebukes the act and restores the wounded man, emphasizing that reliance on violence carries profound moral consequences. The significance of this passage is not that all uses of force are illegitimate, but that violence pursued without restraint or moral discipline ultimately produces destructive consequences for both individuals and institutions.
Applied to contemporary leadership rhetoric, this biblical warning introduces a moral tension when leaders frame military power primarily through domination or unrestrained lethality. Statements in Secretary Hegseth’s speech emphasizing the need to “untie the hands of our warfighters” and unleash “overwhelming and punishing violence” highlight the aggressive exercise of state power (Hegseth, 2025). While decisive military force may sometimes be necessary in warfare, Christian ethics cautions that leaders must exercise such authority with prudence, humility, and moral accountability. The warning that “those who take the sword will perish by the sword” reminds political leaders that power exercised without ethical restraint risks undermining the very institutions and moral legitimacy it seeks to defend. This biblical perspective reinforces the statesmanship traditions reflected in the earlier examples of Franklin, Taft, and Jefferson. Franklin emphasized the cultivation of civic virtue and moderation among leaders and citizens. Taft strengthened institutional legitimacy through procedural reform and disciplined governance. Jefferson recognized the moral burden attached to difficult political decisions and reportedly experienced personal unease when expanding executive authority through the Louisiana Purchase (Ellis, 1997). Each example illustrates that leadership within a republic requires not only the ability to act decisively but also the wisdom to recognize the ethical weight of that power. From this perspective, the biblical warning concerning the sword serves as a reminder that legitimate authority must always be balanced by humility, moral restraint, and responsibility for the consequences of political decisions. In the context of contemporary national security policy, the challenge of statesmanship lies not merely in demonstrating strength but in exercising power in ways that sustain institutional legitimacy, moral credibility, and public trust.
**References**
Associated Press. (2025, October 8). U.S. Navy sinks more than 100 cartel “go-fast boats” in Caribbean crackdown on drug trafficking. Associated Press.
Chesney, R. (2012). Military-intelligence convergence and the law of the Title 10/Title 50 debate.
_Journal of National Security Law & Policy, 5_(2), 539–629.
Ellis, J. J. (1997).
_American sphinx: The character of Thomas Jefferson_. Vintage Books.
Franklin, B. (2004).
_The autobiography of Benjamin Franklin_. Yale University Press. (Original work published 1791)
Hegseth, P. (2025, September 30). Address to general and flag officers at Quantico, Virginia.
O’Connell, M. E. (2010).
_The international law of drone warfare_. American Society of International Law.
Post, R. (2012).
_The Taft Court: Making law for a divided nation_. Cambridge University Press.
Walzer, M. (1973). Political action: The problem of dirty hands.
_Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2_(2), 160–180.
The Holy Bible, New International Version. (2011). Zondervan. (Original work published 1978)
Read Less
**Nathen Lowis**
In Proverbs 28:10 (NLT), the scripture reads, "Those who lead good people along an evil path will fall into their own trap, but the honest will inherit good things". By now, most of us have heard the principle of “to whom much is given, much is expected.” I believe no job embodies that more than the President of the United States. Having the honor to hold that title comes with responsibility, strong leadership qualities, and selflessness. These qualities are summed up as statesmanship. Negative is always easier to investigate than positive unfortunately, so with that being said I present to you a look into January 6th.
The insurrection of January 6th will always be remembered as a day of infamy in American History. That morning started with President Trump delivering a speech at the “Save America” rally in Washington, DC. According to the president’s schedule, after speaking at the rally, he would then head to a meeting to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the presidential election. During this speech Trump stated that, “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Statements made similar to this are what led many to accuse President Trump of inciting the insurrection that would soon follow the rally. “It is also important to recognize that the context in which Trump spoke was very different from that of his previous speeches. Before, Trump was speaking in a bid to become President, as President or to stay as President, and he was talking in general terms about enemies, the need to defeat them, and the need for people to support him in defeating them. By contrast, the 6th January speech was oriented to preventing a very specific event—the certification of the 2020 election result by Congress. Moreover, it required direct action by followers, not just support for Trump himself” (Ntontis et al, 2024). While it was never proven by the court of law, many believe the actions that followed Trump’s speech led to the violence on Capitol Hill. “Even before Trump finished his address shortly after 1:00 pm, and just as the joint session of Congress was being convened, a mob of his supporters—including members of right-wing extremist organizations, such as the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and the Three Percenters, as well as self-identified adherents of the QAnon conspiracy theory—pushed through fences at the western perimeter of the Capitol grounds, forcing Capitol Police officers to retreat to additional barricades closer to the building” (Duignan, 2026). The mob would soon grow to well over 1,000, with the rioters eventually succeeding in breaching the Capital building. During the chaos, members of Congress had to be rushed to safety, law enforcement were beaten by the angry protesters, and eight people tragically lost their lives.
“Statesmanship is exceptional leadership characterized by vision, courage, compassion, effectiveness, and civility. It does not expect perfection but assumes competence and demands excellence. Vision is the ability to see beyond the rush of daily events and to develop and execute a long term strategy. Courage has been called “grace under pressure” and demands steps that may be unpopular, with benefits that are not immediately evident” (Shaw, n.d.). Even though it was never proven that he initiated the riot, his leadership ability is very questionable. According to Fishcher’s description, I believe that Trump would be classified as a charismatic leader. It has been throughout his presidency, the ability to motivate people (Whether negatively or positive). Fischer (2010) states the issue with this leadership is “in becoming “larger than life”, is that they can also become immune to accountability and therefore can become prone to abusing power.” January 6th proved that not all statesmanship is good statesmanship.
References
Duignan, B. (2026, February 2).
_January 6 U.S. Capitol Attack_. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/January-6-U-S-Capitol-attack
Fischer, Kahlib, "A Biblical-Covenantal Perspective on Organizational Behavior & Leadership" (2010). Faculty Publications and Presentations. 523. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/gov_fac_pubs/523
Ntontis, E., Jurstakova, K., Neville, F., Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2024). A warrant for violence? An analysis of Donald Trump’s speech before the US Capitol attack.
_The British Journal of Social Psychology._,
_63_(1), 3–19.
[https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12679Links to an external site.](https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12679)
Shaw, J. (n.d.).
_What a statesman would do | Paul Simon Public Policy Institute | SIU_. Retrieved March 12, 2026, from https://paulsimoninstitute.siu.edu/intiatives/what-a-statesman-would-do.php
**## repliesinstruction1.docx**
**Discussion Ethics in Public Administration reply Assignment Instructions**
you will post replies of 200–250 words each to 2 classmates’ threads. Each reply must be unique and must integrate ideas (and citations) from the required reading. Merely posting the same reply in 2 places is not sufficient. The original thread must incorporate ideas and citations from all of the required readings and presentations for that Module: Week. It must also address statecraft as part of a meaningful discussion of effective statesmanship and it must include citations from at least two additional scholarly sources. The reply posts must also integrate ideas and citations from the required readings and presentations for the Module: Week, as appropriate, and at least two scholarly sources.
**Replies:**
· 2 replies
· 200-250 words per reply
· Ideas and citations from required reading and presentations from the Module: Week, as appropriate
· Ideas and citations from two scholarly sources per reply
Remember that the art of communication is in many ways the lifeblood of effective political leadership. Everything you write—every paper, post, and email—creates or reinforces an impression of you. Begin to cultivate the communication skills of the statesman and stateswoman—the ability to logically and persuasively speak the truth with compassion and respect. Each response post must include new research and analysis, and must build upon the ideas communicated in the original post. Thus, they must go beyond merely restating and affirming what a classmate has said and instead bring in more depth, research and analysis. Accordingly, each response post must include citations from the required reading and presentations.
Responding to a classmate’s thread requires both the addition of new ideas and analysis. A particular point made by the classmate must be addressed and built upon by your analysis in order
**to move the conversation forward**. Thus, the reply is a rigorous assignment that requires you to build upon the thread to develop deeper and more thorough discussion of the ideas introduced. As such, replies that merely affirm, restate or unprofessionally quarrel with the previous thread(s) and fail to make a valuable, substantive contribution to the discussion will receive appropriate point deductions.
**## Replies.docx**
**Tory baley**
**Discussion Thread: Statesmanship, Institutional Legitimacy, and the Ethics of Power**
Secretary Pete Hegseth’s September 30, 2025 address to senior military leaders presents a modern case study for evaluating statesmanship in public administration. In the speech, Hegseth outlines a vision for reshaping the Department of Defense into what he calls a renewed “War Department” culture. Several statements in the speech illustrate the tone and direction of this leadership approach. At one point Hegseth declares that the United States must “untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country,” and later states that the military must be prepared to deliver “overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy” (Hegseth, 2025). In another passage, he dismisses traditional constraints by stating that the military will no longer fight wars with “stupid rules of engagement.” These statements present a leadership style rooted in aggressive authority and operational freedom. The question for public administration is whether such rhetoric reflects the type of institutional leadership traditionally associated with American statesmanship.
Benjamin Franklin’s understanding of leadership focused heavily on the cultivation of civic virtue and moral discipline. Franklin argued that republican institutions depend on leaders who demonstrate moderation, prudence, and self-governance (Franklin, 1791/2004). From Franklin’s perspective, leadership rhetoric plays an important role in shaping the ethical culture of institutions. If leaders emphasize unrestrained violence or dismiss institutional constraints, Franklin might question whether such language cultivates the civic discipline required to sustain a republic. Franklin’s statesmanship sought to elevate the moral character of both leaders and citizens, suggesting that leadership language should reinforce ethical restraint rather than celebrate the exercise of force. William Howard Taft offers a different but complementary lens. Taft’s statesmanship was expressed through institutional reform rather than rhetorical mobilization. As Chief Justice, Taft strengthened the legitimacy and efficiency of the federal judiciary by reorganizing the court system and supporting the Judges’ Bill of 1925 (Post, 2012). Taft’s leadership emphasized stability, procedural legitimacy, and administrative coherence. When compared to Taft’s approach, Hegseth’s speech raises a question about whether sweeping cultural directives delivered through rhetorical force strengthen the institutional foundations of the Department of Defense or instead risk destabilizing established norms of governance.
Thomas Jefferson introduces yet another dimension to this discussion. Jefferson faced a profound constitutional dilemma when he authorized the Louisiana Purchase despite believing that the Constitution did not explicitly grant the president authority to acquire foreign territory. Jefferson ultimately accepted the decision as necessary for the long-term security of the republic, even though it conflicted with his own constitutional philosophy (Ellis, 1997). Jefferson reportedly expressed deep personal unease about the decision, recognizing the moral and constitutional tension it created. Political theorist Michael Walzer later described this type of dilemma as the problem of “dirty hands,” in which leaders sometimes take morally troubling actions for the perceived benefit of the state while bearing the ethical burden of those decisions (Walzer, 1973). Jefferson’s internal struggle contrasts sharply with the tone of certainty and bravado expressed in Hegseth’s speech, highlighting different approaches to the exercise of political power. The practical implications of this leadership style can also be observed in recent U.S. maritime counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean. Reporting by the Associated Press indicates that U.S. naval forces have destroyed more than one hundred cartel “go-fast boats” suspected of transporting narcotics from Venezuelan waters toward Central America and the United States (Associated Press, 2025). These operations have sparked debate among legal scholars and national security analysts regarding the scope of executive authority and the proportional use of military force in counter-narcotics operations (Chesney, 2012; O’Connell, 2010). When viewed alongside Hegseth’s call to loosen operational constraints, these policies illustrate how leadership rhetoric may influence bureaucratic implementation of national security strategy.
From a public administration perspective, the central issue is not simply whether these operations are tactically effective but whether they strengthen the legitimacy of the institutions responsible for carrying them out. Franklin emphasized civic virtue, Taft emphasized institutional reform, and Jefferson acknowledged the moral burden of difficult decisions. Together, these examples suggest that statesmanship involves balancing decisive action with ethical restraint and institutional stewardship. Hegseth’s speech therefore provides a contemporary case for examining whether modern leadership rhetoric aligns with these historical traditions of American statesmanship or represents a departure from them.
A Christian worldview adds another analytical lens to this discussion of statesmanship and the ethical exercise of power. Scripture recognizes that governing authorities may legitimately wield coercive force to protect the public. The Apostle Paul writes that rulers “do not bear the sword for no reason,” but are servants of justice tasked with restraining wrongdoing (Romans 13:4, New International Version). Within Christian political thought, this passage has long been interpreted as affirming the legitimacy of government authority in matters of defense and law enforcement. War, therefore, is not inherently immoral when undertaken in circumstances of extreme self-defense or protection of the innocent. At the same time, the biblical tradition places significant emphasis on humility and restraint when exercising power. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus warns, “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52, New International Version). The statement occurs when Peter attempts to defend Jesus during the arrest in Gethsemane by striking a Roman soldier with a sword. Jesus rebukes the act and restores the wounded man, emphasizing that reliance on violence carries profound moral consequences. The significance of this passage is not that all uses of force are illegitimate, but that violence pursued without restraint or moral discipline ultimately produces destructive consequences for both individuals and institutions.
Applied to contemporary leadership rhetoric, this biblical warning introduces a moral tension when leaders frame military power primarily through domination or unrestrained lethality. Statements in Secretary Hegseth’s speech emphasizing the need to “untie the hands of our warfighters” and unleash “overwhelming and punishing violence” highlight the aggressive exercise of state power (Hegseth, 2025). While decisive military force may sometimes be necessary in warfare, Christian ethics cautions that leaders must exercise such authority with prudence, humility, and moral accountability. The warning that “those who take the sword will perish by the sword” reminds political leaders that power exercised without ethical restraint risks undermining the very institutions and moral legitimacy it seeks to defend. This biblical perspective reinforces the statesmanship traditions reflected in the earlier examples of Franklin, Taft, and Jefferson. Franklin emphasized the cultivation of civic virtue and moderation among leaders and citizens. Taft strengthened institutional legitimacy through procedural reform and disciplined governance. Jefferson recognized the moral burden attached to difficult political decisions and reportedly experienced personal unease when expanding executive authority through the Louisiana Purchase (Ellis, 1997). Each example illustrates that leadership within a republic requires not only the ability to act decisively but also the wisdom to recognize the ethical weight of that power. From this perspective, the biblical warning concerning the sword serves as a reminder that legitimate authority must always be balanced by humility, moral restraint, and responsibility for the consequences of political decisions. In the context of contemporary national security policy, the challenge of statesmanship lies not merely in demonstrating strength but in exercising power in ways that sustain institutional legitimacy, moral credibility, and public trust.
**References**
Associated Press. (2025, October 8). U.S. Navy sinks more than 100 cartel “go-fast boats” in Caribbean crackdown on drug trafficking. Associated Press.
Chesney, R. (2012). Military-intelligence convergence and the law of the Title 10/Title 50 debate.
_Journal of National Security Law & Policy, 5_(2), 539–629.
Ellis, J. J. (1997).
_American sphinx: The character of Thomas Jefferson_. Vintage Books.
Franklin, B. (2004).
_The autobiography of Benjamin Franklin_. Yale University Press. (Original work published 1791)
Hegseth, P. (2025, September 30). Address to general and flag officers at Quantico, Virginia.
O’Connell, M. E. (2010).
_The international law of drone warfare_. American Society of International Law.
Post, R. (2012).
_The Taft Court: Making law for a divided nation_. Cambridge University Press.
Walzer, M. (1973). Political action: The problem of dirty hands.
_Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2_(2), 160–180.
The Holy Bible, New International Version. (2011). Zondervan. (Original work published 1978)
Read Less
**Nathen Lowis**
In Proverbs 28:10 (NLT), the scripture reads, "Those who lead good people along an evil path will fall into their own trap, but the honest will inherit good things". By now, most of us have heard the principle of “to whom much is given, much is expected.” I believe no job embodies that more than the President of the United States. Having the honor to hold that title comes with responsibility, strong leadership qualities, and selflessness. These qualities are summed up as statesmanship. Negative is always easier to investigate than positive unfortunately, so with that being said I present to you a look into January 6th.
The insurrection of January 6th will always be remembered as a day of infamy in American History. That morning started with President Trump delivering a speech at the “Save America” rally in Washington, DC. According to the president’s schedule, after speaking at the rally, he would then head to a meeting to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the presidential election. During this speech Trump stated that, “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Statements made similar to this are what led many to accuse President Trump of inciting the insurrection that would soon follow the rally. “It is also important to recognize that the context in which Trump spoke was very different from that of his previous speeches. Before, Trump was speaking in a bid to become President, as President or to stay as President, and he was talking in general terms about enemies, the need to defeat them, and the need for people to support him in defeating them. By contrast, the 6th January speech was oriented to preventing a very specific event—the certification of the 2020 election result by Congress. Moreover, it required direct action by followers, not just support for Trump himself” (Ntontis et al, 2024). While it was never proven by the court of law, many believe the actions that followed Trump’s speech led to the violence on Capitol Hill. “Even before Trump finished his address shortly after 1:00 pm, and just as the joint session of Congress was being convened, a mob of his supporters—including members of right-wing extremist organizations, such as the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and the Three Percenters, as well as self-identified adherents of the QAnon conspiracy theory—pushed through fences at the western perimeter of the Capitol grounds, forcing Capitol Police officers to retreat to additional barricades closer to the building” (Duignan, 2026). The mob would soon grow to well over 1,000, with the rioters eventually succeeding in breaching the Capital building. During the chaos, members of Congress had to be rushed to safety, law enforcement were beaten by the angry protesters, and eight people tragically lost their lives.
“Statesmanship is exceptional leadership characterized by vision, courage, compassion, effectiveness, and civility. It does not expect perfection but assumes competence and demands excellence. Vision is the ability to see beyond the rush of daily events and to develop and execute a long term strategy. Courage has been called “grace under pressure” and demands steps that may be unpopular, with benefits that are not immediately evident” (Shaw, n.d.). Even though it was never proven that he initiated the riot, his leadership ability is very questionable. According to Fishcher’s description, I believe that Trump would be classified as a charismatic leader. It has been throughout his presidency, the ability to motivate people (Whether negatively or positive). Fischer (2010) states the issue with this leadership is “in becoming “larger than life”, is that they can also become immune to accountability and therefore can become prone to abusing power.” January 6th proved that not all statesmanship is good statesmanship.
References
Duignan, B. (2026, February 2).
_January 6 U.S. Capitol Attack_. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/January-6-U-S-Capitol-attack
Fischer, Kahlib, "A Biblical-Covenantal Perspective on Organizational Behavior & Leadership" (2010). Faculty Publications and Presentations. 523. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/gov_fac_pubs/523
Ntontis, E., Jurstakova, K., Neville, F., Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2024). A warrant for violence? An analysis of Donald Trump’s speech before the US Capitol attack.
_The British Journal of Social Psychology._,
_63_(1), 3–19.
[https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12679Links to an external site.](https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12679)
Shaw, J. (n.d.).
_What a statesman would do | Paul Simon Public Policy Institute | SIU_. Retrieved March 12, 2026, from https://paulsimoninstitute.siu.edu/intiatives/what-a-statesman-would-do.php
**## repliesinstruction1.docx**
**Discussion Ethics in Public Administration reply Assignment Instructions**
you will post replies of 200–250 words each to 2 classmates’ threads. Each reply must be unique and must integrate ideas (and citations) from the required reading. Merely posting the same reply in 2 places is not sufficient. The original thread must incorporate ideas and citations from all of the required readings and presentations for that Module: Week. It must also address statecraft as part of a meaningful discussion of effective statesmanship and it must include citations from at least two additional scholarly sources. The reply posts must also integrate ideas and citations from the required readings and presentations for the Module: Week, as appropriate, and at least two scholarly sources.
**Replies:**
· 2 replies
· 200-250 words per reply
· Ideas and citations from required reading and presentations from the Module: Week, as appropriate
· Ideas and citations from two scholarly sources per reply
Remember that the art of communication is in many ways the lifeblood of effective political leadership. Everything you write—every paper, post, and email—creates or reinforces an impression of you. Begin to cultivate the communication skills of the statesman and stateswoman—the ability to logically and persuasively speak the truth with compassion and respect. Each response post must include new research and analysis, and must build upon the ideas communicated in the original post. Thus, they must go beyond merely restating and affirming what a classmate has said and instead bring in more depth, research and analysis. Accordingly, each response post must include citations from the required reading and presentations.
Responding to a classmate’s thread requires both the addition of new ideas and analysis. A particular point made by the classmate must be addressed and built upon by your analysis in order
**to move the conversation forward**. Thus, the reply is a rigorous assignment that requires you to build upon the thread to develop deeper and more thorough discussion of the ideas introduced. As such, replies that merely affirm, restate or unprofessionally quarrel with the previous thread(s) and fail to make a valuable, substantive contribution to the discussion will receive appropriate point deductions.
**## Replies.docx**
**Tory baley**
**Discussion Thread: Statesmanship, Institutional Legitimacy, and the Ethics of Power**
Secretary Pete Hegseth’s September 30, 2025 address to senior military leaders presents a modern case study for evaluating statesmanship in public administration. In the speech, Hegseth outlines a vision for reshaping the Department of Defense into what he calls a renewed “War Department” culture. Several statements in the speech illustrate the tone and direction of this leadership approach. At one point Hegseth declares that the United States must “untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country,” and later states that the military must be prepared to deliver “overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy” (Hegseth, 2025). In another passage, he dismisses traditional constraints by stating that the military will no longer fight wars with “stupid rules of engagement.” These statements present a leadership style rooted in aggressive authority and operational freedom. The question for public administration is whether such rhetoric reflects the type of institutional leadership traditionally associated with American statesmanship.
Benjamin Franklin’s understanding of leadership focused heavily on the cultivation of civic virtue and moral discipline. Franklin argued that republican institutions depend on leaders who demonstrate moderation, prudence, and self-governance (Franklin, 1791/2004). From Franklin’s perspective, leadership rhetoric plays an important role in shaping the ethical culture of institutions. If leaders emphasize unrestrained violence or dismiss institutional constraints, Franklin might question whether such language cultivates the civic discipline required to sustain a republic. Franklin’s statesmanship sought to elevate the moral character of both leaders and citizens, suggesting that leadership language should reinforce ethical restraint rather than celebrate the exercise of force. William Howard Taft offers a different but complementary lens. Taft’s statesmanship was expressed through institutional reform rather than rhetorical mobilization. As Chief Justice, Taft strengthened the legitimacy and efficiency of the federal judiciary by reorganizing the court system and supporting the Judges’ Bill of 1925 (Post, 2012). Taft’s leadership emphasized stability, procedural legitimacy, and administrative coherence. When compared to Taft’s approach, Hegseth’s speech raises a question about whether sweeping cultural directives delivered through rhetorical force strengthen the institutional foundations of the Department of Defense or instead risk destabilizing established norms of governance.
Thomas Jefferson introduces yet another dimension to this discussion. Jefferson faced a profound constitutional dilemma when he authorized the Louisiana Purchase despite believing that the Constitution did not explicitly grant the president authority to acquire foreign territory. Jefferson ultimately accepted the decision as necessary for the long-term security of the republic, even though it conflicted with his own constitutional philosophy (Ellis, 1997). Jefferson reportedly expressed deep personal unease about the decision, recognizing the moral and constitutional tension it created. Political theorist Michael Walzer later described this type of dilemma as the problem of “dirty hands,” in which leaders sometimes take morally troubling actions for the perceived benefit of the state while bearing the ethical burden of those decisions (Walzer, 1973). Jefferson’s internal struggle contrasts sharply with the tone of certainty and bravado expressed in Hegseth’s speech, highlighting different approaches to the exercise of political power. The practical implications of this leadership style can also be observed in recent U.S. maritime counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean. Reporting by the Associated Press indicates that U.S. naval forces have destroyed more than one hundred cartel “go-fast boats” suspected of transporting narcotics from Venezuelan waters toward Central America and the United States (Associated Press, 2025). These operations have sparked debate among legal scholars and national security analysts regarding the scope of executive authority and the proportional use of military force in counter-narcotics operations (Chesney, 2012; O’Connell, 2010). When viewed alongside Hegseth’s call to loosen operational constraints, these policies illustrate how leadership rhetoric may influence bureaucratic implementation of national security strategy.
From a public administration perspective, the central issue is not simply whether these operations are tactically effective but whether they strengthen the legitimacy of the institutions responsible for carrying them out. Franklin emphasized civic virtue, Taft emphasized institutional reform, and Jefferson acknowledged the moral burden of difficult decisions. Together, these examples suggest that statesmanship involves balancing decisive action with ethical restraint and institutional stewardship. Hegseth’s speech therefore provides a contemporary case for examining whether modern leadership rhetoric aligns with these historical traditions of American statesmanship or represents a departure from them.
A Christian worldview adds another analytical lens to this discussion of statesmanship and the ethical exercise of power. Scripture recognizes that governing authorities may legitimately wield coercive force to protect the public. The Apostle Paul writes that rulers “do not bear the sword for no reason,” but are servants of justice tasked with restraining wrongdoing (Romans 13:4, New International Version). Within Christian political thought, this passage has long been interpreted as affirming the legitimacy of government authority in matters of defense and law enforcement. War, therefore, is not inherently immoral when undertaken in circumstances of extreme self-defense or protection of the innocent. At the same time, the biblical tradition places significant emphasis on humility and restraint when exercising power. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus warns, “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52, New International Version). The statement occurs when Peter attempts to defend Jesus during the arrest in Gethsemane by striking a Roman soldier with a sword. Jesus rebukes the act and restores the wounded man, emphasizing that reliance on violence carries profound moral consequences. The significance of this passage is not that all uses of force are illegitimate, but that violence pursued without restraint or moral discipline ultimately produces destructive consequences for both individuals and institutions.
Applied to contemporary leadership rhetoric, this biblical warning introduces a moral tension when leaders frame military power primarily through domination or unrestrained lethality. Statements in Secretary Hegseth’s speech emphasizing the need to “untie the hands of our warfighters” and unleash “overwhelming and punishing violence” highlight the aggressive exercise of state power (Hegseth, 2025). While decisive military force may sometimes be necessary in warfare, Christian ethics cautions that leaders must exercise such authority with prudence, humility, and moral accountability. The warning that “those who take the sword will perish by the sword” reminds political leaders that power exercised without ethical restraint risks undermining the very institutions and moral legitimacy it seeks to defend. This biblical perspective reinforces the statesmanship traditions reflected in the earlier examples of Franklin, Taft, and Jefferson. Franklin emphasized the cultivation of civic virtue and moderation among leaders and citizens. Taft strengthened institutional legitimacy through procedural reform and disciplined governance. Jefferson recognized the moral burden attached to difficult political decisions and reportedly experienced personal unease when expanding executive authority through the Louisiana Purchase (Ellis, 1997). Each example illustrates that leadership within a republic requires not only the ability to act decisively but also the wisdom to recognize the ethical weight of that power. From this perspective, the biblical warning concerning the sword serves as a reminder that legitimate authority must always be balanced by humility, moral restraint, and responsibility for the consequences of political decisions. In the context of contemporary national security policy, the challenge of statesmanship lies not merely in demonstrating strength but in exercising power in ways that sustain institutional legitimacy, moral credibility, and public trust.
**References**
Associated Press. (2025, October 8). U.S. Navy sinks more than 100 cartel “go-fast boats” in Caribbean crackdown on drug trafficking. Associated Press.
Chesney, R. (2012). Military-intelligence convergence and the law of the Title 10/Title 50 debate.
_Journal of National Security Law & Policy, 5_(2), 539–629.
Ellis, J. J. (1997).
_American sphinx: The character of Thomas Jefferson_. Vintage Books.
Franklin, B. (2004).
_The autobiography of Benjamin Franklin_. Yale University Press. (Original work published 1791)
Hegseth, P. (2025, September 30). Address to general and flag officers at Quantico, Virginia.
O’Connell, M. E. (2010).
_The international law of drone warfare_. American Society of International Law.
Post, R. (2012).
_The Taft Court: Making law for a divided nation_. Cambridge University Press.
Walzer, M. (1973). Political action: The problem of dirty hands.
_Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2_(2), 160–180.
The Holy Bible, New International Version. (2011). Zondervan. (Original work published 1978)
Read Less
**Nathen Lowis**
In Proverbs 28:10 (NLT), the scripture reads, "Those who lead good people along an evil path will fall into their own trap, but the honest will inherit good things". By now, most of us have heard the principle of “to whom much is given, much is expected.” I believe no job embodies that more than the President of the United States. Having the honor to hold that title comes with responsibility, strong leadership qualities, and selflessness. These qualities are summed up as statesmanship. Negative is always easier to investigate than positive unfortunately, so with that being said I present to you a look into January 6th.
The insurrection of January 6th will always be remembered as a day of infamy in American History. That morning started with President Trump delivering a speech at the “Save America” rally in Washington, DC. According to the president’s schedule, after speaking at the rally, he would then head to a meeting to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the presidential election. During this speech Trump stated that, “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Statements made similar to this are what led many to accuse President Trump of inciting the insurrection that would soon follow the rally. “It is also important to recognize that the context in which Trump spoke was very different from that of his previous speeches. Before, Trump was speaking in a bid to become President, as President or to stay as President, and he was talking in general terms about enemies, the need to defeat them, and the need for people to support him in defeating them. By contrast, the 6th January speech was oriented to preventing a very specific event—the certification of the 2020 election result by Congress. Moreover, it required direct action by followers, not just support for Trump himself” (Ntontis et al, 2024). While it was never proven by the court of law, many believe the actions that followed Trump’s speech led to the violence on Capitol Hill. “Even before Trump finished his address shortly after 1:00 pm, and just as the joint session of Congress was being convened, a mob of his supporters—including members of right-wing extremist organizations, such as the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and the Three Percenters, as well as self-identified adherents of the QAnon conspiracy theory—pushed through fences at the western perimeter of the Capitol grounds, forcing Capitol Police officers to retreat to additional barricades closer to the building” (Duignan, 2026). The mob would soon grow to well over 1,000, with the rioters eventually succeeding in breaching the Capital building. During the chaos, members of Congress had to be rushed to safety, law enforcement were beaten by the angry protesters, and eight people tragically lost their lives.
“Statesmanship is exceptional leadership characterized by vision, courage, compassion, effectiveness, and civility. It does not expect perfection but assumes competence and demands excellence. Vision is the ability to see beyond the rush of daily events and to develop and execute a long term strategy. Courage has been called “grace under pressure” and demands steps that may be unpopular, with benefits that are not immediately evident” (Shaw, n.d.). Even though it was never proven that he initiated the riot, his leadership ability is very questionable. According to Fishcher’s description, I believe that Trump would be classified as a charismatic leader. It has been throughout his presidency, the ability to motivate people (Whether negatively or positive). Fischer (2010) states the issue with this leadership is “in becoming “larger than life”, is that they can also become immune to accountability and therefore can become prone to abusing power.” January 6th proved that not all statesmanship is good statesmanship.
References
Duignan, B. (2026, February 2).
_January 6 U.S. Capitol Attack_. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/January-6-U-S-Capitol-attack
Fischer, Kahlib, "A Biblical-Covenantal Perspective on Organizational Behavior & Leadership" (2010). Faculty Publications and Presentations. 523. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/gov_fac_pubs/523
Ntontis, E., Jurstakova, K., Neville, F., Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2024). A warrant for violence? An analysis of Donald Trump’s speech before the US Capitol attack.
_The British Journal of Social Psychology._,
_63_(1), 3–19.
[https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12679Links to an external site.](https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12679)
Shaw, J. (n.d.).
_What a statesman would do | Paul Simon Public Policy Institute | SIU_. Retrieved March 12, 2026, from https://paulsimoninstitute.siu.edu/intiatives/what-a-statesman-would-do.php
Fluency and vocabulary support comprehension skills. Students need to master skills in fluency and vocabulary to be able to comprehend and make meaning of the text they read. A way to integrate fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension skills is by planning and implementing an author study. The benefit…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Fluency and vocabulary support comprehension skills. Students need to master skills in fluency and vocabulary to be able to comprehend and make meaning of the text they read. A way to integrate fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension skills is by planning and implementing an author study. The benefits begin with the notion that good readers study good writers. Additional benefits of author studies include cross-curricular integration, building critical thinking skills, and exposure to various literary styles in both fiction and nonfiction. As discussed in the Science of Reading, systemic and explicit instruction will best support readers as they engage with more complex texts.
Choose a grade level and identify 3-5 books that are written by the same author to develop an author study text set that would be appropriate for the grade level. Create a 750 word digital resource (e.g., website landing page, virtual bulletin board, handout) to share with other grade-level teachers. Include the following in your resource:
**Part 1: Supporting Fluency and Comprehension Strategies**
– Grade level, author, and titles of all books in the author study.
– Brief biography of the author and rationale for why this author and books chosen are appropriate for the grade level.
– Identify two comprehension strategies that can be taught using the author study text set. Provide a detailed example of how you would teach each strategy.
– Describe two research-based fluency activities to incorporate into your author study.
**Part 2: Supporting Vocabulary**
Choose one of the books from the author study text set and describe the following:
– Identify vocabulary words for all three tiers of vocabulary.
– Identify a research-based vocabulary strategy to explicitly teach each tier of words and provide a detailed example of how you would teach each strategy.
**Part 3: Fluency, Comprehension, and Vocabulary Culminating Activity**
Create a culminating activity or project that will engage students in reviewing the comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency strategies learned throughout the author study. The final activity or project should include the following information:
– Brief description of the activity or project, including how the comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency strategies will be reviewed and used in the project.
– At least one technology tool and a brief description of how it will be integrated into the activity or project.
– Grade-level cross-curricular content and/or skills that can be integrated into the activity or project.
– At least one strategy for integrating listening and speaking skills into the activity or project.
– Suggestions for differentiating the activity or project to support students, including ELLs, early finishers, gifted students, and students with disabilities, such as dyslexia.
Support your assignment with a minimum of two scholarly resources.
[>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal) replies **files (1)** – ## week1replies.docx **## week1replies.docx** **561 discussions:** In your responses to two of your peers, expand on your peers’ ideas and/or provide constructive feedback. How might enforcement agencie…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →[>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal)
replies
**files (1)**
– ## week1replies.docx
**## week1replies.docx**
**561 discussions:**
In your responses to two of your peers, expand on your peers’ ideas and/or provide constructive feedback. How might enforcement agencies integrate mental health and/or mental health professionals into response teams for critical incidents? How might mental health professionals can play a role in helping officers process trauma?
**561 d1 reply to eric 200 words reply**
Law enforcement officers often encounter traumatic events that can affect their psychological well-being. In the scenario presented, Officer Jane Harris experiences a critical incident that results in the use of lethal force, which can lead to emotional distress and symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). According to James (2024), crisis events often create intense psychological reactions for both victims and responders, particularly when the situation involves threats to life or the need to use force. Law enforcement agencies should implement strategies that support officers’ mental and emotional health following high-stress incidents.
A great strategy for departments to implement is developing structured critical incident stress management (CISM) programs. These programs include immediate debriefings, access to trained peer support officers, and confidential counseling services. Peer support teams can be a valuable asset due to officers feeling more comfortable speaking to their own peers who have gone through similar experiences and understand the realities of police work. Departments should also provide access to licensed mental health professionals who specialize in trauma experienced by first responders. In addition, mandatory wellness checks after a major incident can normalize seeking support and remove the stigma of mental health services. James (2024) emphasizes that crisis responders must have access to intervention strategies that stabilize emotional reactions and promote long-term recovery.
One of the most significant obstacles officers encounter is the stigma within police culture, where seeking psychological assistance may be perceived as a sign of weakness or being unfit for duty. Officers may also fear that disclosing mental health concerns could negatively impact promotions, specialized assignments, or their professional reputation. Confidentiality concerns and limited departmental resources can further discourage officers from pursuing assistance.
The ability to balance professional duty and mental health is essential for officers such as Harris. While officers are committed to protecting the community, they must also recognize that maintaining psychological wellness is necessary for effective decision-making and safe policing. Seeking counseling, engaging in peer support programs, and utilizing departmental wellness resources can help officers process traumatic experiences and remain capable of performing their duties responsibly.
To create a healthier, more stable culture, law enforcement departments should promote leadership support for mental health initiatives and integrate training into the academy and in-service training that openly acknowledges the psychological effects of critical incidents. Encouraging upper management to discuss mental health openly and highlighting positive examples of officers who seek help, ensuring there would be no repercussions if they do. This command support could gradually reduce these negative stigmas. By promoting officer wellness as a priority, agencies strengthen their officers, their department, and the overall effectiveness of the agency.
Reference
James, R. (2024). Crisis Intervention Strategies (9th ed.). Cengage Learning US. https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9798214125787
**561 d1 reply to brandon 200 words reply**
Highrisk domestic violence calls place officers in situations where splitsecond decisions can carry lifelong psychological consequences. In Officer Harris’s case, the rapid escalation and use of lethal force reflect what James (2024) describes as the “emotional residue” of crisis encounters, where officers often absorb the trauma of both the victim and the offender. Departments can better support officers by implementing structured postincident protocols, including mandatory debriefings, confidential counseling options, and peer support teams trained in traumainformed practices. Shane (2019) emphasizes that organizational stressors—such as inadequate resources and cultural stigma—often compound the effects of critical incidents more than the incidents themselves. Addressing stigma requires leadership modeling helpseeking behavior, normalizing mental health conversations, and integrating wellness into routine training rather than treating it as remedial.
Officers like Harris often face significant barriers when seeking support, including fear of being perceived as weak, concerns about career impact, and distrust of internal mental health services. Recent research shows these concerns are widespread; for example, Jetelina et al. (2022) found that officers frequently avoid mental health treatment due to confidentiality fears and the belief that acknowledging trauma may jeopardize their professional standing. When officers internalize these pressures, they may struggle to balance their duty to the community with their own psychological needs. Maintaining that balance requires acknowledging that personal wellness is not separate from professional performance—untreated trauma can impair judgment, decisionmaking, and longterm career sustainability.
To foster a healthier culture, departments must move beyond reactive support and build systems that proactively strengthen resilience. This includes embedding wellness officers within units, offering regular mental health checkins, and providing training on recognizing early signs of trauma. Leadership must also communicate that psychological impact is an expected part of policing, not an individual failing. When agencies create an environment where officers feel safe acknowledging their experiences, they enhance both recovery and operational readiness. Ultimately, supporting officers like Harris is not only a moral obligation but a strategic investment in the longterm health of the profession.
References
James, R. K. (2024). Crisis intervention strategies (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Jetelina, K. K., Molsberry, R. J., Gonzalez, J. R., Beauchamp, A. M., Hall, T., & Bishopp, S. A. (2022). Prevalence of mental illness and mental health care use among police officers. JAMA Network Open, 5(10), e2231711.
Shane, J. M. (2019). Stress inside police departments. Routledge.
**524 d1 reply to doug 100 words**
My example of an existing criminal justice program is a relatively new law in Texas known as the State Jail Felony. It was established in 1993, through a series of legislation aimed directly at the sudden rise of non violent drug offenses. The idea came along with the establishment of Drug Impact Courts, and a slew of all new penitentiaries that popped up all over the state. They were run by the Department of Corrections but called “Jail Division”, while the other “big boy” prisons that housed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree felons continued to be run by the “Institutional Division”.
This enormous undertaking represented a distinct tier of punishment for the state's least severe felony offenses, such as low-level drug possession and property crimes. Sentences ranged from 180 days to two years in these specialized facilities, with no possibility of parole or "good time" credit, meaning inmates typically serve their full term day-for-day. While originally intended to divert non-violent offenders into rehabilitative programs, the system has faced significant scrutiny regarding its long-term outcomes and systemic goals. Today many of these units hold all ranges of felony offenders not just State Jail level Offenders. Even though originally they were meant to be housed separately, due to prison over crowding, they are no longer kept separate.
The ultimate goal of this new law was to reduce recidivism. Using the seven essential criteria outlined in our text, starting with effectiveness, let’s see how successful Texas was in accomplishing this goal. The program is often measured by its impact on crime and recidivism. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Strategic Plan for 2023 through 2027, the data indicates that state jail felons frequently have higher recidivism rates, “approximately 24.3% to 24.4% re-incarcerated within three years, compared to those in traditional prisons.” (TDCJ 2023). This suggests to me, the current model may struggle to accomplish its primary goal of reducing future criminal activity. After all these laws were designed to be diversionary in nature.
Next we look through the lens of externalities. Most of the data on the external issues of this initiative were not positive. They of course include the use or waste of tax payers dollars and the idea of more or less bang for the buck. This burden of cost was oftentimes placed directly on local communities, The financial and emotional instability caused to families of the incarcerated. It is mentioned these "spillover effects" can lead to generational cycles of crime, as children of incarcerated parents face higher risks of future criminal involvement. In retrospect did Texas “create” another crime problem by creating additional laws to fight the war on drugs? It has been more than thirty years now and the data may show, we may have been sold a lemon.
If we examine the theory or the theoretical foundation of state jails, we find they are rooted in the ideals of rehabilitation and specific attempts at deterrence. The goal was to understand root causes, like substance abuse, and provide personal transformation opportunities to reintegrate individuals into society. However, this form of incarceration may have simply led to institutionalism. Whereby some people became accustomed to being incarcerated and no longer feared prison. Thereby the deterrent effect of traditional prison was lost and subsequently some failed to successfully reintegrate into society and continued to re-offend.
On the other side of the same coin, those who favored this type of reform have argued its efficiency, relating that this type of incarceration is less cost-efficient than community-based diversions like probation. “While incarceration accounts for roughly 90% of Texas' corrections spending, programs like community supervision are often more cost-effective at achieving the same or better public safety results.” (Texas Criminal Justice Coalition 2016).
Next we should examine the idea of compliance. This focuses on ensuring facilities meet minimum standards to reduce state liability and ensure inmate safety. According to the Texas University, Court Justice Training Center, recent legislative efforts such as the Damon Allen Act, have also sought to tighten compliance regarding bail and release practices to better protect the public. Only time will tell if clamping down on the issue of bail will reduce crime and recidivism.
Of course with any discussion about new legislation in the field of criminal justice there will always be the topic of equity. In this case my thoughts are not about the term itself as equity refers to “money in the bank.” What I think most scholars are referring to including the authors of our text is the term Equality. Equality concerns persist regarding racial and gender disparities in how these sentences and diversion programs are applied. Critics argue that without targeted efforts, minority communities remain disproportionately affected by the state jail system's revolving door.
Lastly is the topic of Intervention. Did enacting these laws have the desired interventions, such as ISFs or Intermediate Sanctions Facilities and job training which were conceptualized to lower recidivism by addressing skill gaps and substance issues. For example, did the programs offered within these state jails actually work? Did they provide the tailored services like mental health support and vocational training to help offenders find livable-wage employment upon release? Some argue those that did receive these services were recommitted anyway.
According to Dunworth et al. (2003), “evidence-based policy is a rigorous approach that draws on careful data collection, experimentation, and both quantitative and qualitative analysis to answer three questions: What exactly is the problem? What are the possible ways to address the problem? And what are the possible impacts of each?” (Dunworth et al., 2003). In the brief case study of the State Jail Felony in Texas, looking at the way the department uses these facilities today, and the high recidivism rate of state jail offenders, I would have to say it hasn’t been as effective as we once hoped. As a society we sometimes throw good money after bad. The vehicle of the State Jail Felony is way over it’s usable lifespan and in my opinion should not be rebuilt. We might better serve the state by taking this one to the junk yard and repurposing the money for something else.
~Doug
Jr., F.P.R. B. (2019). Flawed Criminal Justice Policies: At the Intersection of the Media, Public Fear and Legislative Response (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376)
Online Article. (2023). Texas Department of Criminal Justice: FY 2023-2027 Agency Strategic Plan.
[https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/documents/bfd/Agency_Strategic_Plan_FY2023-2027.pdf](https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/documents/bfd/Agency_Strategic_Plan_FY2023-2027.pdf)
Online Article. (2016). Texas Criminal Justice Coalition: Solutions for Safely Reducing Incarceration.
[https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/documents/bfd/Agency_Strategic_Plan_FY2023-2027.pdf](https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/documents/bfd/Agency_Strategic_Plan_FY2023-2027.pdf)
Online Article. (2025). Texas State University-Texas Court Justice Training Center: SB 6 Damon Allen Act and Setting Bail.
[https://www.tjctc.org/bail.html#:~:text=What%20is%20Senate%20Bill%206,goals%20of%20the%20system%20are](https://www.tjctc.org/bail.html):
**524 reply to mahtab 100 words**
One example of a criminal justice policy is the Three Strikes Law, which is primarily implemented at the state level in the United States, particularly in states such as California. The policy requires individuals who commit a third serious felony offense to receive a significantly longer sentence, often life imprisonment. The goal of this policy was to reduce repeat offending by incapacitating habitual offenders and deterring individuals from committing additional crimes.
Using Foster’s seven essential criteria for good policy, several aspects of the Three Strikes policy can be evaluated. First, the policy has a clear objective, which is to reduce recidivism and improve public safety. Second, it offers a specific solution by mandating harsher sentences for repeat offenders. However, when considering effectiveness, research has shown that the policy has not consistently produced the intended reduction in crime rates. Additionally, the policy raises concerns regarding fairness and proportionality, since individuals may receive extremely long sentences even when the third offense is relatively minor. Policies that fail to produce the intended outcomes or create unintended consequences can be considered flawed within criminal justice policymaking (Reddington & Bonham, 2019).
Overall, the Three Strikes policy has some benefits, particularly in incapacitating repeat offenders. However, it is not entirely effective and may produce costly and disproportionate outcomes. A useful improvement would be limiting the policy to serious and violent crimes and regularly evaluating its outcomes through evidence-based policy analysis. Evidence-based approaches help ensure that criminal justice policies are guided by research and empirical findings rather than assumptions or political pressures (Reddington & Bonham, 2019).
Reference:
Reddington, F. P., & Bonham, G., Jr. (Eds.). (2019). Flawed criminal justice policies: At the intersection of the media, public fear and legislative response (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.
less
**524 d2 reply to laycee 100 words**
The objectives through the National Criminal History Improvement Program are being met through the success and utilization of local, state, and national law enforcement agencies. The National Criminal History Improvement Program is responsible for the direct awards toward the assistance needed by multiple law enforcement agencies in a state or national level. This program provides technical assistance to different state and national agencies to improve the quality of work in acquiring criminal history records and other information. Through the National Criminal History Improvement Program, the aspects of quality, timeliness, and immediate access to these types of records are granted. In order for agencies to receive complete records of data, data from law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and corrections are integrated and linked together. Through NCHIP, agencies are guaranteed to identify eligibility for firearm purchasers, working with special populations (children, elderly, or disabled), protection orders/warrants/convictions for any domestic violence offense as well. Call (2019) discussed how sex offenders face formal and informal barriers to employment because of the nature of their sentences. Sex offenders are ostracized from the regular offender population due to their criminal actions as well. Within 33 years, all 50 states and District Of Columbia have participated in the services of the NCHIP. In the state of Missouri, the Missouri State Highway Patrol utilizes this program to improve criminal history records, research dispositions on recent law/policy changes. MSHP uses this program to address violent crimes including gun violences for criminal history records as well.
Call, C. (2019). Types of Employment and Factors that Predict Employment Among Registered Sex Offenders. Virginia Social Science Journal, 53, 25–36.
**524 d2 reply to eric 100 words**
The Bureau of Justice Statistics runs the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), which gives states money and help with technology to make criminal history data more accurate and easier to find. The program's main goal is to improve record systems so that police, courts, and other criminal justice groups can promptly get accurate information for background checks, investigations, and decisions about public safety.
NCHIP has mostly worked well on a national level. Since the middle of the 1990s, the program has helped states update their record systems and make it easier for agencies to share information. One of its most important accomplishments has been helping to make the National Instant Criminal Background examine System (NICS) better and more accurate. This system is used to examine people's backgrounds when they want to buy a gun. Because of this, most states now send criminal history records to national databases. This makes it easy for police departments all around the country to get important information.
NCHIP financing has helped make records more automated and communication better between courts, law enforcement, and prison agencies at the state level. These changes make it easier for cops and investigators to get accurate criminal history information promptly. There are still some problems, though. Some states don't consistently update arrest records with the final court findings, which might lead to incomplete criminal histories.
Overall, NCHIP is accomplishing many of its goals by making records better and making it easier for different jurisdictions to share information. Welsh and Harris (2016) say that good criminal justice programs need clear goals and cooperation, which NCHIP mostly does. Still, there is room for development.
To make the program better, more money should go into making it easier for judges and police to share information with each other. States should also set consistent standards for reporting so that records are updated fast and correctly. More training for the people who keep criminal history systems up to date could make records even more reliable.
In summary, NCHIP is still a vital program that helps make criminal justice information systems better and helps people make smart choices all around the country.
References
Welsh, W. N., & Harris, P. W. (2016). Criminal justice policy and planning (5th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2024). National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP). U.S. Department of Justice.
**## week1replies.docx**
**561 discussions:**
In your responses to two of your peers, expand on your peers’ ideas and/or provide constructive feedback. How might enforcement agencies integrate mental health and/or mental health professionals into response teams for critical incidents? How might mental health professionals can play a role in helping officers process trauma?
**561 d1 reply to eric 200 words reply**
Law enforcement officers often encounter traumatic events that can affect their psychological well-being. In the scenario presented, Officer Jane Harris experiences a critical incident that results in the use of lethal force, which can lead to emotional distress and symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). According to James (2024), crisis events often create intense psychological reactions for both victims and responders, particularly when the situation involves threats to life or the need to use force. Law enforcement agencies should implement strategies that support officers’ mental and emotional health following high-stress incidents.
A great strategy for departments to implement is developing structured critical incident stress management (CISM) programs. These programs include immediate debriefings, access to trained peer support officers, and confidential counseling services. Peer support teams can be a valuable asset due to officers feeling more comfortable speaking to their own peers who have gone through similar experiences and understand the realities of police work. Departments should also provide access to licensed mental health professionals who specialize in trauma experienced by first responders. In addition, mandatory wellness checks after a major incident can normalize seeking support and remove the stigma of mental health services. James (2024) emphasizes that crisis responders must have access to intervention strategies that stabilize emotional reactions and promote long-term recovery.
One of the most significant obstacles officers encounter is the stigma within police culture, where seeking psychological assistance may be perceived as a sign of weakness or being unfit for duty. Officers may also fear that disclosing mental health concerns could negatively impact promotions, specialized assignments, or their professional reputation. Confidentiality concerns and limited departmental resources can further discourage officers from pursuing assistance.
The ability to balance professional duty and mental health is essential for officers such as Harris. While officers are committed to protecting the community, they must also recognize that maintaining psychological wellness is necessary for effective decision-making and safe policing. Seeking counseling, engaging in peer support programs, and utilizing departmental wellness resources can help officers process traumatic experiences and remain capable of performing their duties responsibly.
To create a healthier, more stable culture, law enforcement departments should promote leadership support for mental health initiatives and integrate training into the academy and in-service training that openly acknowledges the psychological effects of critical incidents. Encouraging upper management to discuss mental health openly and highlighting positive examples of officers who seek help, ensuring there would be no repercussions if they do. This command support could gradually reduce these negative stigmas. By promoting officer wellness as a priority, agencies strengthen their officers, their department, and the overall effectiveness of the agency.
Reference
James, R. (2024). Crisis Intervention Strategies (9th ed.). Cengage Learning US. https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9798214125787
**561 d1 reply to brandon 200 words reply**
Highrisk domestic violence calls place officers in situations where splitsecond decisions can carry lifelong psychological consequences. In Officer Harris’s case, the rapid escalation and use of lethal force reflect what James (2024) describes as the “emotional residue” of crisis encounters, where officers often absorb the trauma of both the victim and the offender. Departments can better support officers by implementing structured postincident protocols, including mandatory debriefings, confidential counseling options, and peer support teams trained in traumainformed practices. Shane (2019) emphasizes that organizational stressors—such as inadequate resources and cultural stigma—often compound the effects of critical incidents more than the incidents themselves. Addressing stigma requires leadership modeling helpseeking behavior, normalizing mental health conversations, and integrating wellness into routine training rather than treating it as remedial.
Officers like Harris often face significant barriers when seeking support, including fear of being perceived as weak, concerns about career impact, and distrust of internal mental health services. Recent research shows these concerns are widespread; for example, Jetelina et al. (2022) found that officers frequently avoid mental health treatment due to confidentiality fears and the belief that acknowledging trauma may jeopardize their professional standing. When officers internalize these pressures, they may struggle to balance their duty to the community with their own psychological needs. Maintaining that balance requires acknowledging that personal wellness is not separate from professional performance—untreated trauma can impair judgment, decisionmaking, and longterm career sustainability.
To foster a healthier culture, departments must move beyond reactive support and build systems that proactively strengthen resilience. This includes embedding wellness officers within units, offering regular mental health checkins, and providing training on recognizing early signs of trauma. Leadership must also communicate that psychological impact is an expected part of policing, not an individual failing. When agencies create an environment where officers feel safe acknowledging their experiences, they enhance both recovery and operational readiness. Ultimately, supporting officers like Harris is not only a moral obligation but a strategic investment in the longterm health of the profession.
References
James, R. K. (2024). Crisis intervention strategies (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Jetelina, K. K., Molsberry, R. J., Gonzalez, J. R., Beauchamp, A. M., Hall, T., & Bishopp, S. A. (2022). Prevalence of mental illness and mental health care use among police officers. JAMA Network Open, 5(10), e2231711.
Shane, J. M. (2019). Stress inside police departments. Routledge.
**524 d1 reply to doug 100 words**
My example of an existing criminal justice program is a relatively new law in Texas known as the State Jail Felony. It was established in 1993, through a series of legislation aimed directly at the sudden rise of non violent drug offenses. The idea came along with the establishment of Drug Impact Courts, and a slew of all new penitentiaries that popped up all over the state. They were run by the Department of Corrections but called “Jail Division”, while the other “big boy” prisons that housed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree felons continued to be run by the “Institutional Division”.
This enormous undertaking represented a distinct tier of punishment for the state's least severe felony offenses, such as low-level drug possession and property crimes. Sentences ranged from 180 days to two years in these specialized facilities, with no possibility of parole or "good time" credit, meaning inmates typically serve their full term day-for-day. While originally intended to divert non-violent offenders into rehabilitative programs, the system has faced significant scrutiny regarding its long-term outcomes and systemic goals. Today many of these units hold all ranges of felony offenders not just State Jail level Offenders. Even though originally they were meant to be housed separately, due to prison over crowding, they are no longer kept separate.
The ultimate goal of this new law was to reduce recidivism. Using the seven essential criteria outlined in our text, starting with effectiveness, let’s see how successful Texas was in accomplishing this goal. The program is often measured by its impact on crime and recidivism. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Strategic Plan for 2023 through 2027, the data indicates that state jail felons frequently have higher recidivism rates, “approximately 24.3% to 24.4% re-incarcerated within three years, compared to those in traditional prisons.” (TDCJ 2023). This suggests to me, the current model may struggle to accomplish its primary goal of reducing future criminal activity. After all these laws were designed to be diversionary in nature.
Next we look through the lens of externalities. Most of the data on the external issues of this initiative were not positive. They of course include the use or waste of tax payers dollars and the idea of more or less bang for the buck. This burden of cost was oftentimes placed directly on local communities, The financial and emotional instability caused to families of the incarcerated. It is mentioned these "spillover effects" can lead to generational cycles of crime, as children of incarcerated parents face higher risks of future criminal involvement. In retrospect did Texas “create” another crime problem by creating additional laws to fight the war on drugs? It has been more than thirty years now and the data may show, we may have been sold a lemon.
If we examine the theory or the theoretical foundation of state jails, we find they are rooted in the ideals of rehabilitation and specific attempts at deterrence. The goal was to understand root causes, like substance abuse, and provide personal transformation opportunities to reintegrate individuals into society. However, this form of incarceration may have simply led to institutionalism. Whereby some people became accustomed to being incarcerated and no longer feared prison. Thereby the deterrent effect of traditional prison was lost and subsequently some failed to successfully reintegrate into society and continued to re-offend.
On the other side of the same coin, those who favored this type of reform have argued its efficiency, relating that this type of incarceration is less cost-efficient than community-based diversions like probation. “While incarceration accounts for roughly 90% of Texas' corrections spending, programs like community supervision are often more cost-effective at achieving the same or better public safety results.” (Texas Criminal Justice Coalition 2016).
Next we should examine the idea of compliance. This focuses on ensuring facilities meet minimum standards to reduce state liability and ensure inmate safety. According to the Texas University, Court Justice Training Center, recent legislative efforts such as the Damon Allen Act, have also sought to tighten compliance regarding bail and release practices to better protect the public. Only time will tell if clamping down on the issue of bail will reduce crime and recidivism.
Of course with any discussion about new legislation in the field of criminal justice there will always be the topic of equity. In this case my thoughts are not about the term itself as equity refers to “money in the bank.” What I think most scholars are referring to including the authors of our text is the term Equality. Equality concerns persist regarding racial and gender disparities in how these sentences and diversion programs are applied. Critics argue that without targeted efforts, minority communities remain disproportionately affected by the state jail system's revolving door.
Lastly is the topic of Intervention. Did enacting these laws have the desired interventions, such as ISFs or Intermediate Sanctions Facilities and job training which were conceptualized to lower recidivism by addressing skill gaps and substance issues. For example, did the programs offered within these state jails actually work? Did they provide the tailored services like mental health support and vocational training to help offenders find livable-wage employment upon release? Some argue those that did receive these services were recommitted anyway.
According to Dunworth et al. (2003), “evidence-based policy is a rigorous approach that draws on careful data collection, experimentation, and both quantitative and qualitative analysis to answer three questions: What exactly is the problem? What are the possible ways to address the problem? And what are the possible impacts of each?” (Dunworth et al., 2003). In the brief case study of the State Jail Felony in Texas, looking at the way the department uses these facilities today, and the high recidivism rate of state jail offenders, I would have to say it hasn’t been as effective as we once hoped. As a society we sometimes throw good money after bad. The vehicle of the State Jail Felony is way over it’s usable lifespan and in my opinion should not be rebuilt. We might better serve the state by taking this one to the junk yard and repurposing the money for something else.
~Doug
Jr., F.P.R. B. (2019). Flawed Criminal Justice Policies: At the Intersection of the Media, Public Fear and Legislative Response (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376)
Online Article. (2023). Texas Department of Criminal Justice: FY 2023-2027 Agency Strategic Plan.
[https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/documents/bfd/Agency_Strategic_Plan_FY2023-2027.pdf](https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/documents/bfd/Agency_Strategic_Plan_FY2023-2027.pdf)
Online Article. (2016). Texas Criminal Justice Coalition: Solutions for Safely Reducing Incarceration.
[https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/documents/bfd/Agency_Strategic_Plan_FY2023-2027.pdf](https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/documents/bfd/Agency_Strategic_Plan_FY2023-2027.pdf)
Online Article. (2025). Texas State University-Texas Court Justice Training Center: SB 6 Damon Allen Act and Setting Bail.
[https://www.tjctc.org/bail.html#:~:text=What%20is%20Senate%20Bill%206,goals%20of%20the%20system%20are](https://www.tjctc.org/bail.html):
**524 reply to mahtab 100 words**
One example of a criminal justice policy is the Three Strikes Law, which is primarily implemented at the state level in the United States, particularly in states such as California. The policy requires individuals who commit a third serious felony offense to receive a significantly longer sentence, often life imprisonment. The goal of this policy was to reduce repeat offending by incapacitating habitual offenders and deterring individuals from committing additional crimes.
Using Foster’s seven essential criteria for good policy, several aspects of the Three Strikes policy can be evaluated. First, the policy has a clear objective, which is to reduce recidivism and improve public safety. Second, it offers a specific solution by mandating harsher sentences for repeat offenders. However, when considering effectiveness, research has shown that the policy has not consistently produced the intended reduction in crime rates. Additionally, the policy raises concerns regarding fairness and proportionality, since individuals may receive extremely long sentences even when the third offense is relatively minor. Policies that fail to produce the intended outcomes or create unintended consequences can be considered flawed within criminal justice policymaking (Reddington & Bonham, 2019).
Overall, the Three Strikes policy has some benefits, particularly in incapacitating repeat offenders. However, it is not entirely effective and may produce costly and disproportionate outcomes. A useful improvement would be limiting the policy to serious and violent crimes and regularly evaluating its outcomes through evidence-based policy analysis. Evidence-based approaches help ensure that criminal justice policies are guided by research and empirical findings rather than assumptions or political pressures (Reddington & Bonham, 2019).
Reference:
Reddington, F. P., & Bonham, G., Jr. (Eds.). (2019). Flawed criminal justice policies: At the intersection of the media, public fear and legislative response (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.
less
**524 d2 reply to laycee 100 words**
The objectives through the National Criminal History Improvement Program are being met through the success and utilization of local, state, and national law enforcement agencies. The National Criminal History Improvement Program is responsible for the direct awards toward the assistance needed by multiple law enforcement agencies in a state or national level. This program provides technical assistance to different state and national agencies to improve the quality of work in acquiring criminal history records and other information. Through the National Criminal History Improvement Program, the aspects of quality, timeliness, and immediate access to these types of records are granted. In order for agencies to receive complete records of data, data from law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and corrections are integrated and linked together. Through NCHIP, agencies are guaranteed to identify eligibility for firearm purchasers, working with special populations (children, elderly, or disabled), protection orders/warrants/convictions for any domestic violence offense as well. Call (2019) discussed how sex offenders face formal and informal barriers to employment because of the nature of their sentences. Sex offenders are ostracized from the regular offender population due to their criminal actions as well. Within 33 years, all 50 states and District Of Columbia have participated in the services of the NCHIP. In the state of Missouri, the Missouri State Highway Patrol utilizes this program to improve criminal history records, research dispositions on recent law/policy changes. MSHP uses this program to address violent crimes including gun violences for criminal history records as well.
Call, C. (2019). Types of Employment and Factors that Predict Employment Among Registered Sex Offenders. Virginia Social Science Journal, 53, 25–36.
**524 d2 reply to eric 100 words**
The Bureau of Justice Statistics runs the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), which gives states money and help with technology to make criminal history data more accurate and easier to find. The program's main goal is to improve record systems so that police, courts, and other criminal justice groups can promptly get accurate information for background checks, investigations, and decisions about public safety.
NCHIP has mostly worked well on a national level. Since the middle of the 1990s, the program has helped states update their record systems and make it easier for agencies to share information. One of its most important accomplishments has been helping to make the National Instant Criminal Background examine System (NICS) better and more accurate. This system is used to examine people's backgrounds when they want to buy a gun. Because of this, most states now send criminal history records to national databases. This makes it easy for police departments all around the country to get important information.
NCHIP financing has helped make records more automated and communication better between courts, law enforcement, and prison agencies at the state level. These changes make it easier for cops and investigators to get accurate criminal history information promptly. There are still some problems, though. Some states don't consistently update arrest records with the final court findings, which might lead to incomplete criminal histories.
Overall, NCHIP is accomplishing many of its goals by making records better and making it easier for different jurisdictions to share information. Welsh and Harris (2016) say that good criminal justice programs need clear goals and cooperation, which NCHIP mostly does. Still, there is room for development.
To make the program better, more money should go into making it easier for judges and police to share information with each other. States should also set consistent standards for reporting so that records are updated fast and correctly. More training for the people who keep criminal history systems up to date could make records even more reliable.
In summary, NCHIP is still a vital program that helps make criminal justice information systems better and helps people make smart choices all around the country.
References
Welsh, W. N., & Harris, P. W. (2016). Criminal justice policy and planning (5th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2024). National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP). U.S. Department of Justice.