Catholic Charities, Diocese of Metuchen, is a non-profit organization located in Perth Amboy, New Jersey. This organization is “dedicated to service, quality, and outreach for members of the community, especially those who are poor, devalued, and in need of help” (Catholic Charities, Diocese of Metuchen, 2017). Their mission is to help every individual, regardless of their origin, race, or religion. They provide services to people all over to ensure they receive the help needed.
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Metuchen, can be framed as structural and human resource. The structural frame “describes the role of structural architecture in determining roles and relationships and assigning tasks within the organizations” (Netting, Kettner, McMurtry, Thomas, 2017, p.190). In this organization, the employees focus on the goals they need to meet, the structure they need to use, and their roles as social workers, clinicians, or counselors. However, they also use the human resources frame, which “examines the relationships among people and how people relate to the organization” (Netting, Kettner, McMurtry, Thomas, 2017, p.190). In this case, Catholic Charities endeavors to help those in need. Workers are there to listen to the client, ensuring that their concerns are heard and understood. This can help the worker understand the client’s needs and provide them with the appropriate resources. As stated in the Social Work Macro Practice textbook, “no frame captures everything” (Netting, Kettner, McMurtry, Thomas, 2017, p.190). All frames go beyond their definitions. The political and symbolic frames did not match the organization because they focus more on power and competition and on which clients get what, rather than prioritizing what’s best for the client.
Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject
Order now
The approach that best describes this organization is the prescriptive approach. This approach “is designed as a how-to guide, and its goal is to help build a better organization” (Netting, Kettner, McMurtry, Thomas, 2017, p.190). This approach matches the organization because their mission is to help and improve the community, assisting each individual in various ways and ensuring clients reach their fullest potential. Conversely, the descriptive approach is defined as “theories that assist in analyzing what is happening within the communities but do not provide the practitioner with methods to change a situation once it has been analyzed” (Netting, Kettner, McMurtry, Thomas, 2017, p.399). This implies that the organization will not seek to improve the problem once they’ve made a decision, even if the decision could benefit from improvements. Catholic Charities’ mission and values do not follow the descriptive approach.
The theoretical approach that best fits the Catholic Charities agency is the open-systems approach. This approach focuses on the interaction with the environment, on how the organization interacts with the community, as opposed to closed systems, which focus more on internal structures and processes, paying no attention to interaction with the environment (Netting, Kettner, McMurtry, Thomas, 2017, p.192). This organization works with the client to find the best resources they need. They work with the communities to help and guide the clients along the correct path. As stated in the textbook, “An open systems approach views organization as cybernetic systems, meaning they gather information from their environments and use it to decide on their actions” (Netting, Kettner, McMurtry, Thomas, 2017, p.222).
The Open System theory by Katz and Kahn (1966) was the one that I found most outstanding for this organization. The key concept of this theory is systems theory inputs, throughputs, and outputs (Netting, Kettner, McMurtry, Thomas, 2017, p.200). These are extremely important to the Catholic Charities agency. The book defines input as “clients who request services, values, expectations, and opinions,” throughput as “the service provided by the agency,” and output as “the organization’s products” (Netting, Kettner, McMurtry, Thomas, 2017, p.201). The Catholic Charities agency goes through all of these to help a client and obtain successful outcomes. These are extremely important to the organization in order to meet their values, mission, and vision.
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Metuchen, is an empowerment organization. This organization focuses on addressing various needs, serving all kinds of people, and ensuring that their workers are dedicated to helping, guiding, and protecting everyone who seeks help. Workers are committed to providing service to individuals that no one else will serve, practicing justice and compassion, achieving success through partnership, and always operating with integrity and honesty (Catholic Charities, Diocese of Metuchen, 2017). In the textbook, Jeffrey Pfeffer (1981) described power as “the ability to influence actions, and politics as the process through which it is influenced” (Netting, Kettner, McMurtry, Thomas, 2017, p.121). He also stated how power and organizational structure are closely tied (Netting, Kettner, McMurtry, Thomas, 2017, p.121). This means that the structure of the organization is extremely important for the agency to be successful and to empower others.
Overall, the Catholic Charities, Diocese of Metuchen, is an organization that works with the community to help the client in all ways. They go above and beyond to provide them with the best resources, adhering to their mission and values. They empower each individual to become a better version of themselves. This chapter allowed me to understand the different kinds of theories, how they work, and the different frames, approaches, and filters each can have. I was able to understand the organization and identify which theory best fits this organization.
Death Penalty And Justice
By now, many of us are familiar with the statement, “an eye for an eye,” which came from the bible, so it should be followed as holy writ. Then there was Gandhi, who inspired thousands and said, “an eye for an eye will leave us all blind.” This begs the question, which option do we pick to be a good moral agent, in the terms of justice that is. Some states in America practice the death penalty, where some states do not advocate a penalty of death whatsoever. Can we be justified by sentencing someone to death for killing another, or do we turn the other cheek? I believe the best answer to an injustice with this much gravity should be answered with justice. Although the death penalty may serve as retribution to such slights, the fact is we are still taking a life from the outside looking in, do we have the right?
To a better understanding, we need to refresh our memories behind the basic argument behind retribution and punishment, which goes like this: all guilty people deserve to be punished, only guilty people deserve to be punished, guilty people deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crime. The argument would create a principle that allows justice to entail people to suffer for their transgression and to suffer in a way suitable for the crime. So, each criminal consequence will be equal to their crime. In turn, any cases of murderers would result in capital punishment (Durand, 2017). We can all agree the undeniable truth that killing a person further inhibits their ability to kill anyone else.
Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject
Order now
Although, some argue this is an inadequate justification for taking the life of another and believe there are other punitive measures we can take that guarantees criminals can not kill again, such as life in prison without parole. Some may counter that argument with the possibility of a person escaping prison and able to harm another, but it is a rare case. Perhaps the person may not be a danger to society any longer, but he could pose a threat to other inmates and prison staff. Yes, execution would eliminate the threat, but also has brought relief to the victims’ families in providing feelings of closure (Rachels, 2015) (Death Penalty Facts, 2012).
This argument could prove insubstantial as every individual family may respond in different and various ways. There are families that would feel the death of this person does no such things as giving them a sense of closure. Accordingly, the argument in question does not deliver sound reasoning for capital punishment. Many would agree in terms of life, that human lives are valuable, and some extreme believers agree human life is so valuable that even the worst of offenders should not be underprivileged by being deprived the value of their lives. They argue the thought that the value of the life of a murderer is unable to be destroyed by their misconduct, even if they have just taken a life. Everyone obtains the human right to life even murders and sentencing a person to death is in violation of this right. However, it can be said a person can give up their right to live by their actions; the act of murder could be an act that would forfeit the right to life (Rachels, 2015).
The most powerful and persuasive defense against capital punishment is that it is only a matter of time before innocent people are sentenced to die because nothing is perfect especially our justice system as there are flaws which can lead to such mistakes. Witnesses, prosecutors, jurors, and judges are people humans are not intangible to making mistakes. Put that together with a system that is flawed, it is highly likely people that are innocent will suffer.
The most common and most convincing argument against capital punishment is that sooner or later, innocent people will get killed, because of mistakes or flaws in the justice system. In America alone, 130 people sentenced to death have been found innocent since 1973 and ultimately being released from death row (Death Penalty Facts, 2012). Numerous countries, including America, have executed people proven to suffer from insanity. The (NGRI) or “not guilty by the reasoning of insanity,” does not dismiss their crime, but rather proves the person was incapacitated due to mental illness. It is a rigorous process, as many of those that attempt the plea, are not found guilty by reason of insanity. People found insane is put in a mental institution, not for their safety, but for the safety of society (Death Penalty Facts, 2012) (Durand, 2017).
Given the evidence provided against the death penalty, one can easily see that there is little in a fulfilling purpose to it. Whatever form of this understanding one supports, its insinuation for the death penalty is reasonably clear. What is the point of a criminal reforming themselves when they prepare to be executed? which view should have priority in our thinking about punishment? Is there really a need for the Death Penalty in human society? Like a silver lining on a dark cloud, it can be made clear that, in an otherwise despairingly erroneous system, exists other practicable alternatives. The amount of different and less controversial, more rational and resourceful approaches to handling the severe misconduct in our society question the very nature and existence of the death penalty. Could it be as a means of controlling our shared hatred, confusion and anger that is a fundamental point that lies within the darker side of humanity, originating from conditions of our life that are laborious and demanding? The system has inadvertently created a system that relies on a scapegoat, pinning the blame of troubles amongst society onto them. The scapegoats then become victims of these cruel punishments; it is they who are blamed and cast out when the fault lies within our inherent social policies, methods, and practices.
References
- Death Penalty Facts. (2012, May). Retrieved from Amnesty USA: https://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/DeathPenaltyFactsMay2012.pdf
- Durand, V. &. (2017). Essentials of Abnormal Psychology 7th ed. Cengage Learning.
- Rachels, S. &. (2015). The Right Thing To Do: Basic Readings In Moral Philosophy 7th ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
