Post your response to one of the following discussion questions for Module 6, HMP Chapter 8. Please, copy the question you are commenting in your response. Your initial response for each selected question has to be at least 250 words. Please add a word count at the end of each response. Cite the weekly readings and other sources, if needed, to support your comment. Past and current hazard events are recommended to talk about as examples in your comments. You also have to comment on one initial response from other students.
QUESTIONS:
Q1: In your opinion, based on what you have learned in Modules 4-6, what level of government is the most appropriate level to deal with the impacts of hazards and climate change? Why? Try to come up with a good example to complement your explanation.
Q2: Using the Internet or other resources, find a hazard zoning map of the area where you grew up. Describe the level of risk in comparison with other places in that region and assess the risk of experiencing a disaster event. Determine whether the map is useful to make decisions at the local level (consider the scale of the map) and comment on the strenghts and weaknesses of the zonification.
Q3: Applying what you have learned in Modules 4-6 (review the modules!), how do you evaluate the response to COVID-19 from the different administrative levels and the coordination among them? What are some of the successes and the failures in the response? What would you have done differently in this multilevel coordination? Focus on the question (Leave aside political opinions).
evaluate the depth of your ideas, if you cited works or sources, the use of examples, the connections you bring up, etc. Show me you really thought your answer and that you want full credit!
Sample Solution
aforementioned evidence about the personâs criminal culpability (Kuersten). âIncreasing the understanding of the pathology of the brain and the structural insights provided by technologies such as MRI have assisted both prosecution and defense in establishing degrees of harm causeâ (Catley & Claydon). When presenting an individualâs criminal liability within the courts, the mental state and capacity of such individualâs brain should include neuroimaging and informative presentations to allow jurors to determine criminal responsibility (Kuersten). Conclusion: Based upon empirical evidence, brain scans should not be permitted in court. Neuroscience within courtrooms has been used for medical evidence or mitigating circumstances to prove that an abnormality had an effect on an individualâs behavior, however it has a lack of validated studies (Gaines). Another issue that brain scans could produce in the courts is how the brain is defined. If the brain is defined as a piece of evidence, the use of electroencephalography could be used to incriminate such individual. Furthermore, if the brain is viewed as a testimony, the defendant has protections against self-incrimination or testifying against themselves (Gaines). Neuroimaging techniques produce pictures of a brain at the point they are being scanned. At a criminal trial, the mental faculties that the individual possessed is at the forefront of concern. Using brain scans inside of the courtroom to determine mental guilt for a crime post-hoc provides little value. Brain scans provide integral parts of understanding the brain and provide causal links between structural or functional abnormalities, but endangers individual liberties within the Criminal Justice System from freedom of thought, invasions of privacy, self-incrimination, and due process (Kraft & Giordano). Based upon the findings and research done on brain scans and what information comes forth, brain scans need more evidentiary and legal practice to determine whether they can be successful in courts. Through this research, brain scans have provided a strong correlation between the Big Five personality traits as well as psychopathology and how the brain is structured. Due to the fact that people are not walking around with brain scan monitors strapped to their head, using brain scans to define a guil>
aforementioned evidence about the personâs criminal culpability (Kuersten). âIncreasing the understanding of the pathology of the brain and the structural insights provided by technologies such as MRI have assisted both prosecution and defense in establishing degrees of harm causeâ (Catley & Claydon). When presenting an individualâs criminal liability within the courts, the mental state and capacity of such individualâs brain should include neuroimaging and informative presentations to allow jurors to determine criminal responsibility (Kuersten). Conclusion: Based upon empirical evidence, brain scans should not be permitted in court. Neuroscience within courtrooms has been used for medical evidence or mitigating circumstances to prove that an abnormality had an effect on an individualâs behavior, however it has a lack of validated studies (Gaines). Another issue that brain scans could produce in the courts is how the brain is defined. If the brain is defined as a piece of evidence, the use of electroencephalography could be used to incriminate such individual. Furthermore, if the brain is viewed as a testimony, the defendant has protections against self-incrimination or testifying against themselves (Gaines). Neuroimaging techniques produce pictures of a brain at the point they are being scanned. At a criminal trial, the mental faculties that the individual possessed is at the forefront of concern. Using brain scans inside of the courtroom to determine mental guilt for a crime post-hoc provides little value. Brain scans provide integral parts of understanding the brain and provide causal links between structural or functional abnormalities, but endangers individual liberties within the Criminal Justice System from freedom of thought, invasions of privacy, self-incrimination, and due process (Kraft & Giordano). Based upon the findings and research done on brain scans and what information comes forth, brain scans need more evidentiary and legal practice to determine whether they can be successful in courts. Through this research, brain scans have provided a strong correlation between the Big Five personality traits as well as psychopathology and how the brain is structured. Due to the fact that people are not walking around with brain scan monitors strapped to their head, using brain scans to define a guil>
