Which factors contribute to young people committing crime?

Which factors contribute to young people committing crime? Which factors contribute to young people committing crime? Introduction I chose this topic for my literature review as I feel that if we understand the root of the problem of the crime, in this case the risk factors that lead to criminal activity, then juvenile delinquency could be understoodand possibly prevented. A risk factor is ‘some specific characteristic displayed by a person or their circumstances that bears some statistically significant correlative position in relation to their behaviour† (Brown, 2005). Home Office statistics for 2009/10 show that young people age 10-17 were responsible for 20% of all the crime recorded by the police. (Cooper and Roe, 2012). Due to the high number of crime committed by youth, even though they are mostly minor crimes, is it important to understand what leads them to committing criminal acts. Numerous researchers have come up with theories and reasons which try to explain why young people choose to commit deviant acts. The following studies found in this literature review will attempt to explain some of the factors that contribute to young people committing crime. Methodology For this literature review I have used a variety of sources which will provide me with both qualitative and quantitate data. I researched studies from journal articles, government reports and afters going to the library I managed to find many books on the topic of factors contributing to juvenile delinquency. I also managed to find a few websites that provided me with background information and statistics. Findings A number of researchers categorise ‘risk’ factors in many different ways. In this essay however I will mostly talk about individual, social/family and environmental factors. Each of this category has its own subcategories. For example, under the category of social factors it can be included family risks, peer-related risks, etc. Environmental Risk Factors Several research articles I looked at suggests that one of the reasons why youth choose to commit criminal acts is because of poverty. A study was conducted at the Kamiti Youth Corrective Training centre (Y.C.T.C) where the sample were 55 inmates selected by random sampling from a total of 120 inmates. It was found that over 70% of the sample were poor or came from families with poor background. This was based on where they lived, whether or not they owned properties and the types of crimes they committed, For example, some of the inmates stated that because they lacked their basic needs, they run from home into the streets to beg for survival. They stated that they also became involved in petty offences like stealing good or properties values that were not too expensive. This finding showing that poverty is a cause of crime among youth, supports the theory of Thomas R. Forstenzer, in one of his articles called â€Å"Tomorrow in North America: Youth between the American dream and re ality†, in The Twentieth Session UNESCO General Conference Report titled â€Å"Youth in the 1980S â€Å" on poverty as a main reason of deviant acts. He states that economic stress and believing in personal failure is â€Å"†¦the chronic culprit for the symptoms of social decay: drugs, alcohol and sex related problems that will affect the young as long as the family itself difficulty facing the strains of inflation and unemployment†. (Omboto et al., 2013) As poverty is linked with social class, more than 80% of the sample from the Y.C.T.C. study belonged to lower social class. Before their arrests a majority of them lived in poor areas around Nairobi city such as Kibera and Mathare. The researcher stated that some of these offences were bare footed. This finding on social class and delinquency confirms the opinion of Wright and Younts (2009) that delinquency rate increased while social class decreased. Social Risk Factors Other researchers believe that some youth get into crime as a form of rebellion against parental authority and due to peer pressure. Youth people may choose to commit crimes as a way to show their independence of the ‘adult’ word and its rules, as a way of getting attention and respect from peers, as well as trying to compensate for their restricted opportunities at school or in their community. By having good relationships with parents during childhood might help in a fortunate transition to adolescence, but it does not guarantee it, as risk factors are linked together. For instance, even though one might have an outstanding relationship with the parents, they might come from a low social status, and therefore it might led them to commit crimes. Hirschi (1969) argues that â€Å"delinquent acts result when an individual’s bond to society is weak or broken. He states that conformity starts from four types of social control which then these create social bonds. The weaker those bonds are the most likely it is for someone to commit a deviant act. For example attachment is one type of social control. Strong social attachments leads to conformity, and by having a fragile family/peer/school relationship, can make people to commit crimes more easily. (Hirschi 1969 cited in Carrabine E. et al.) Ojo (2012) states that broken homes and low education attainment as some of the causes for youth committing deviant acts. In the Y.C.T.C. study, most of boys from the sample came from dysfunctional families. Some of the boys were orphans and had no guardian to look after them before their arrest, other boys has divorced parents or a single parents and others’ parents were alcoholics or were not able to give a ‘good’ parenthood. For instance, in the sample7 boys had divorced parents, 6 youths mothers died, 14 has no father (either died or unknown), while 8 had no parents at all. When it comes to education, 78% did not go beyond class six primary with their schooling. (Omboto et al., 2013) West Farmington (1973) stated that just like low income family income, large family members is also an important factor of youth offending. This is due to the presence of several siblings that leads to faulty upbringing by parents/guardians at critical stages of the child’s development. Individual Risk Factors Other studies have found that individual risk factors also play a role in the behaviour of the youth. Individual factors include factors such as impulsivity, attention problems, low intelligence and low school attainment. For instance. LeMarquand and Tremblay (2001) cited in OJJDP’s argued that â€Å"the best social behaviour characteristic to predict delinquent behaviour before age 13 appears to be aggression†. Hawkins at al. (1998) cited in OJJDP’s also found ‘a positive relationship between hyperactivity, concentration and attention problems, impulsivity and risk taking ad later violent behaviour’ Herrenkohl et al (2001) cited in OJJDP’s stated that â€Å"children with low academic performance, low commitment to school, and low educational aspirations during elementary and middle school grades are at higher risk for child delinquency than are other children† Otherl Risk Factors Other risk factors found in the literature which might influence a young person’s behaviour can be community and neighbourhood. Young people who live in a neighbourhood with a high level of poverty and crimes, is likely to increase the risk of young people being involved in a serious type of offence.( McCord, Widom and Crowell 2001 cited in OJJDP’s). Prevention strategies which can help to lessen the risk factors Richards (2011) believes that taking away the youth form their areas and putting them behind the bars, does not deal with the underlying problem. Therefore some measure should be put in place to help reduce young people involvement in crime. For example the government and private agencies should creaser employment opportunities for youth of employable ages. Parents must also be responsible for their own children (providing moral guidance and material needs). But also learning institutions for youth must put in place sport and extra-curriculum activities, as this will leave them less time, if no time at all to be preoccupied with other things like offences Conclusion From summarising the studies, I have identified 3 main risk factors that can have an impact on young people’s involvement in crime: Social, individual and environmental risk factors. I have also identifies other risk factors which are not too important but it does have some relevance to young people’s behaviour. I have also identified some prevention strategies which might help to young people to stop getting involved in criminal activities. Overall, whether is down to individual, social or environmental factors, young people’s involvement in crimes sees to decrease since 1995. But we cannot say crimes declined due to the improvement of one factor (i.e. social factors) because as I discussed earlier, risk factors are connected with one another. Even though risk factors give us an understanding to why young people might choose to commit crimes, risk factor approach has its limitations. One of them being the risk of being labelled, young people being generalised and it also fails to distinguish correlation form causation. Preventing the delinquents is a big problem with no easy and quick solutions. Risk factors only offers the possibility to establish which youth is more likely to commit deviant acts. If I was to do further research on this topic, I would try to find more research based in the United Kingdom as most of the research I found was from America, however the short time prevented me from doing so. Reference Brown, S. (2005). Understanding youth and crime. 2nd ed. London: Open University Press, p.100. Carrabine, E., Cox, P., Lee, M., Plummer, K. and South, N. (2009). Criminology. A Sociological intrdouction. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, p.83. Cooper, C. and Roe, S. (2012). An estimate of youth crime in England and Wales: Police recorded crime committed by young people in 2009/10. 1st ed. [ebook] London: Crown. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/167982/horr64.pdf [Accessed 2 Nov. 2014]. Ojo, M.O.D. (2012) A Sociological Review of Issues on Juvenile Delinquency The Journal of International Social Research Volume: 5 Issue: 22 465-482 Omboto, J., Ondiek, G., Odera, O. and Ayugi, M. (2013). Factors influencing youth crimes and juvenile delinquency. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, [online] 1(2), pp.18-20. Available at: http://www.ijsk.org/uploads/3/1/1/7/3117743/sociology_2.pdf [Accessed 3 Nov. 2014]. Richards, K. (2011). What makes juvenile offenders different from adult offenders?. [online] www.aic.gov.au. Available at: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi409.pdf [Accessed 3 Nov. 2014]. West D.J. and Farmington D.P. (1973) â€Å"Who becomes Delinquents† Second report of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent. London: Heinemann Wright, B.R.E. Younts, C.W. (2009) Reconstructing the Relationship between Race and Crime: Positive and Negative Predictors of Crime among African American Youth Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 2009 46:327 The iPremier Co.: Denial of Service Attack The iPremier Co.: Denial of Service Attack Wk3AssgnCannadyE The iPremier Co.: Denial of Service Attack. On January 12, 2007, iPremier Web servers were brought to a halt after a denial-of-service (DoS) attack had occurred. (https://services.hbsp.harvard.edu/services/proxy/content/55482727/55482733/bc0bf879de2a3b14574a611f54ec52c6). (ADOS attack) is where a multiple of compromised systems, which maybe infected with a Trojan virus, are used to target a single system causing a Denial of Service (DoS) attack. Victims of a DDoS attack consist of both the end targeted system and all systems maliciously used and controlled by the hacker in the distributed attack. (http://www.ddosprotection.com/about/ddos-information/) How well did the iPremier Company perform during the 75-minute attack? In what ways were the companys operating procedures deficient in responding to this attack? In what ways were they adequate? What additional procedures might have been in place to better handle the attack? In my opinion, Qdata and iPremier really dropped the ball on this by not thinking steps ahead. They did not have a contingency plan or any plan of sort for this worst case scenario. iPremeir had placed too much faith into Qdata`s ability to handle the situation or threat. The first thing I noticed the company did was panic, since there was no crisis strategy/disaster plan. The attack couldnt have happened at the worse time since the attack happened during a high traffic period. If this attack was done by competitors than they got what they were looking for by hurting the reputation of the company. If I was Bob Turley, I may be worried if Im still going to have a position still, since I was not prepared for this infrastructure break. Bob did not go over all known threats to the infrastructure risk matrix and develop procedures to immediately identify the type and risk. These threats would need to be continually assessed as new ones emerge and the identification would have helped deter mined the right procedures for defending against them. My first move I wouldve of made is open a line of communication with Qdata to discuss any risk measure we may have to take. I would not have let the attack go on for so long without pulling the plug to our servers so the customer information cannot be stolen. I would also increase my security against attackers. Having system and users use stronger encryption passwords. Have better real-time monitoring, with a backup plan that has went through testing. Train my employees to better understand the type of attacks and train them on how to handle emergency situations. Even after that make another business continuity plan and test it end to end than repeat. Keep all the software up to date that will better protect from viruses and attacks. You may want to hire an outside audit team to keep a check and balance. The biggest problem is the host provider. If I was Bob, I may want to build a much better relationship with my provider, showing the importance of this never happening again. Since in sense its my companys reputation which is on the line. If that dont work, I would go get a more reliable/reputable host provider. With a high class support and infrastructure, with better security measures. Besides of the updating I would do to the software, Firewalls would also need to up dated. This will protect my company from viruses and also protect from the whatever employee. Again training my employees on what not to do is really important. Train them on emails and what type of emails are at risk. Tell them to always inform somebody on any obscene gestures they computer may be exhibiting. Especially any ha emails. In the aftermath of the attack, what actions would you recommend? My biggest concerns are Legal, Public Relations, Stock Prices, Customer Information and Network Security as least important after the attack. The attack just proved to any competition that my firewalls can be hacked. In looking who could be the one responsible. I would be looking at my competition and what would they have to gain in my attack. Since in sense if I pulled the plug than it would take at least 24 hours to get back running. Even if I did not pull the plug and I rode the attack out than I would still have to shut down business because of then security breach. No matter which route taken, I would still be at lost once my firewalls proved to be vulnerable. There a lot of equations to look at. This is the main reason I would have an outside Network Operations Center (NOC). They will provide all the monitoring I may need for any issue that may arrive even the increase of bandwidth References: http://www.ddosprotection.com/about/ddos-information/ https://services.hbsp.harvard.edu/services/proxy/content/55482727/55482733/bc0bf879de2a3b14574a611f54ec52c6

Lsi Paper Essay

The life Styles Inventory (LSI) is developed by Dr. J. Clayton Lafferty. LSI are measures 12 specific styles of patterns of thinking that can either help or hinder a person from reaching his or her potential. The 12 styles measures by LSI are organized into three general clusters: Constructive, Passive/Defensive, Aggressive/Defensive. Research has shown that the styles measures by the LSI are related to a number of indicators of effectiveness and success, including leadership effectiveness, management effectiveness, problem solving effectiveness, quality of interpersonal relations, salary, organizational level, individual health and well being, and organization culture. Part 1: Personal Thinking Styles After I took the LSI, my primary personal thinking style are Dependent and Competitive which came in the same percentile with a 99 percentile. My back up personal thinking style is Approval with a 95 percentile. To begin with my primary personal thinking, first, Dependent style, passive/defensive cluster, is about people who relies on others for direction, a good follower, doesn’t challenge others, and aims to please everyone. I totally agree this style can show who I am. Most of my life I tend to dependent on the others until now. I like to be a follower and accept what is people thinking and making decision. Now, I’m trying to change my thinking and attitude because I don’t want to be a follower forever. I know myself why I am always a follower because I am afraid to say something to be the first person, I might say the wrong answer that will makes me feel embarrass in classroom or public places. This might be side effect from when I was young, once time I said the wrong answer in classroom and my classmates started laugh at me. That situation still stays with me. Another of my primary personal thinking is Competitive style, aggressive/defensive cluster, is about people who competes rather than cooperates, strong need to win, and constantly compares self to others. I don’t agree with this score. For me, I think that competitive thinking style is not to be descriptive me. I always do the best with my job and task but I didnâ€⠄¢t focus on to be winning. I do accept my colleagues work, I am not the person who will say no or disagree too much. I plan to achieve my goal but I didn’t think to be number one. This thinking style seems cannot explain me. Next, my backup personal thinking is Approval style, passive/defensive cluster, is about people sets goals that please others, support those with the most authority, agrees with everyone, and reluctantly deals with conflict. I totally agree with this score. According to LSI result, the approval scale measures our need to be accepted by others to increase or sustain our feeling of self-worth. I think dependent and approval styles both are similar to explain me. I like to work many people but I will be a good listener. This might be cause from I don’t like to read since I was young until now. I want to change myself to be a good reader, so, I might have more knowledge to discuss, suggest, and participate with others people. The one style that might be working against me and reducing my overall effectiveness would be the Humanistic-Encouraging. I like to work and share story with people but for this style I think I don’t have to o much power to encourage people believe what I say or what I think. I can be an advisor for who has a problem but I don’t know after I talked with them my advice with help them or not. My score in Humanistic-Encouraging is the lowest percentile with is 57 percentile. So, I need to motivate myself for improve for effective in organization. Part 2: Impact on Management Style A: Planning B: organizing C: Leading D: Controlling Part 3: Genesis of Personal Style Part 4: Conclusion and reflection I think this survey is very benefits and advantages for me. When I looked at the score on the first time I don’t think dependent style will be my primary  but after I read all detail about who are in this style. I believe, this can show how I am. After finished this survey, I know how to approve and change my personal life style. This survey seems like a guideline that show you how to improve. Also if you follow all those steps, your personal style and think will change to be a good way. In this course MGMT591, I have my goal

Customer Expectation Through Service Excellence - 1758 Words

Party Rental Ltd began as a secondary line of business for Oprandy’s Liquor store in Englewood, New Jersey. Oprandy’s provided an additional service to customers who were picking up wine and beer for their house parties by renting tables, chairs, and glassware. In April 1972 it was expanded into a larger scale rental business with more appropriate items. A year later they moved into a 10,000 square foot facility. In august 2006, it was relocated to a 350,000 sq. foot corporate headquarters in Teterboro, NJ where they currently reside. However, there also are smaller subsidies in Pennsylvania, the Hamptons and Maryland. Although, there is a written mission, core values and philosophy, they are only posted and pop up on our computers daily.†¦show more content†¦Organizational Structure Upper Management consists of one CEO Owner, one COO/President (Son of Owner), and VP/CFO. Management consist of VP of Human Resource, VP of Operations, Department Directors Managers, Supervisors of different areas (roles responsibility unclear) When reading about Party Rental Ltd there is a sense that the old â€Å"mom and pop† community store has grown in size but there is no formal business structure or philosophy reflecting the change. One might believe change was just adopted words only and never internalized and operationalized. It is interesting, because the dress code use to be business causal but was changed to a more old community affect of â€Å"jean and T shirts†. What occurs at Party Rental annually is a break even financial status. Ironically, everyone seems ok with it. Prices are raised annually and they terminate and hire seasonally. An excessive number of clients are not charged for half or all of an order due to inadequate service, such as incorrect items delivered, inaccurate delivery times, and mix-ups in dispatch and truck loading for delivery. Language barriers in the warehouse accounts for misinformation and poor customer service. In addition, supervisors employed for specific areas overlap resulting in indecision and there is confusion. Employees may require supervision but this is ineffective. Processes for customer service to establish an order for

Winning the Vote for Women Around the World

When did various nations give all women the right to vote? Many granted suffrage in steps -- some locales gave the vote for local elections first, or some racial or ethnic groups were excluded until later. Often, the right to stand for election and the right to vote were given at separate times. Full suffrage means that all groups of women were included, and could both vote and run for any office. 1850-1879 1851: Prussian law forbids women from joining political parties or attending meetings where politics is discussed.1869: Britain grants unmarried women who are householders the right to vote in local elections1862/3: Some Swedish women gain voting rights in local elections. 1880-1899 1881: Some Scottish women get the right to vote in local elections.1893: New Zealand grants equal voting rights to women.1894: The United Kingdom expands womens voting rights to married women in local but not national elections.  1895: South Australian women gain voting rights.1899: Western Australian women were granted voting rights.   1900-1909 1901: Women in Australia get the vote, with some restrictions.  1902: Women in New South Wales get the vote.1902: Australia grants more voting rights to women.1906: Finland adopts woman suffrage.1907: Women in Norway are permitted to stand for election.1908: Women in Denmark some women granted local voting rights.1908: Victoria, Australia, grants women voting rights.1909: Sweden grants vote in municipal elections to all women. 1910-1919 1913: Norway adopts full woman suffrage.1915: Women get the vote in Denmark and Iceland.1916: Canadian women in Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan get the vote.1917: When the Russian Czar is toppled, the Provisional Government grants universal suffrage with equality for women; later the new Soviet Russian constitution includes full suffrage to women.1917: Women in the Netherlands are granted the right to stand for election.1918: The United Kingdom gives a full vote to some women -- over 30, with property qualifications or a UK university degree -- and to all men age 21 and older.1918: Canada gives women the vote in most provinces by federal law. Quebec is not included. Native women were not included.1918: Germany grants women the vote.1918: Austria adopts woman suffrage.1918: Women given full suffrage in Latvia, Poland, Estonia, and Latvia.1918: Russian Federation gives women the right to vote.1921: Azerbaijan grants woman suffrage. (Sometimes given as 1921 or 1917.)1918: Women gran ted limited voting rights in Ireland.1919: Netherlands gives women the vote.1919: Woman suffrage is granted in Belarus, Luxembourg, and Ukraine.1919: Women in Belgium granted right to vote.1919: New Zealand allows women to stand for election.1919: Sweden grants suffrage with some restrictions. 1920-1929 1920: On August 26, a constitutional amendment is adopted when the state of Tennessee ratifies it, granting full woman suffrage in all states of the United States.1920: Woman suffrage is granted in Albania, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia.1920: Canadian women get the right to stand for election (but not for all offices - see 1929 below).1921: Sweden gives women voting rights with some restrictions.1921: Armenia grants woman suffrage.1921: Lithuania grants woman suffrage.1921: Belgium grants women the right to stand for election.1922: Irish Free State, separating from the UK, gives equal voting rights to women.1922: Burma grants women voting rights.1924: Mongolia, Saint Lucia, and Tajikistan give suffrage to women.1924: Kazakstan gives limited voting rights to women.1925: Italy grants limited voting rights to women.1927: Turkmenistan grants woman suffrage.1928: The United Kingdom grants full equal voting rights to women.1928: Guyana grants woman suffrage.1928: Ireland (as part of the UK) expands womens suffrage rights.1929: Ecuador grants suffrage, Romania grants limited suffrage.1929: Women found to be persons in Canada and therefore able to become members of the Senate. 1930-1939 1930: White women granted suffrage in South Africa.1930: Turkey grants women the vote.1931: Women get full suffrage in Spain and  Sri Lanka.1931: Chile and Portugal grant suffrage with some restrictions.1932: Uruguay, Thailand and Maldives jump on the woman suffrage bandwagon.1934: Cuba and Brazil adopt woman suffrage.1934: Turkish women are able to stand for election.1934: Portugal grants woman suffrage, with some restrictions.1935: Women gain right to vote in Myanmar.1937: The Philippines grants women full suffrage.1938: Women get the vote in Bolivia.1938: Uzbekistan grants full suffrage to women.1939: El Salvador grants voting rights to women. 1940-1949 1940: Women of Quebec are granted voting rights.1941: Panama grants limited voting rights to women.1942: Women gain full suffrage in the  Dominican Republic.1944: Bulgaria, France and Jamaica grant suffrage to women.1945: Croatia, Indonesia, Italy, Hungary, Japan (with restrictions), Yugoslavia, Senegal, and Ireland enact woman suffrage.1945: Guyana allows women to stand for election.1946: Woman suffrage adopted in Palestine, Kenya, Liberia, Cameroon, Korea, Guatemala, Panama (with restrictions), Romania (with restrictions), Venezuela, Yugoslavia, and Vietnam.1946: Women allowed to stand for election in Myanmar.1947: Bulgaria, Malta, Nepal, Pakistan, Singapore, and Argentina extend suffrage to women.1947: Japan extends suffrage, but still retains some restrictions.1947: Mexico grants the vote to women at the municipal level.1948: Israel, Iraq, Korea, Niger, and Surinam adopt woman suffrage.1948: Belgium, which previously granted the vote to women, establishes suffrage with a few re strictions for women.1949: Bosnia and Herzegovina grant woman suffrage.1949: China and Costa Rica give women the vote.1949: Women gain full suffrage in Chile but most vote separately from men.1949: Syrian Arab Republic gives the vote to women.1949/1950: India grants woman suffrage. 1950-1959 1950: Haiti and Barbados adopt woman suffrage.1950: Canada grants full suffrage, extending the vote to some women (and men) previously not included, still excluding Native women.1951: Antigua, Nepal, and Grenada give women the vote.1952: Covenant on Political Rights of Women enacted by the United Nations, calling for womens right to vote and right to stand for elections.  1952: Greece, Lebanon, and Bolivia (with restrictions) extend suffrage to women.1953: Mexico grants women the right to stand for election. and to vote in national elections.1953: Hungary and Guyana give voting rights to women.1953: Bhutan and the Syrian Arab Republic establish full woman suffrage.1954: Ghana, Colombia, and Belize grant woman suffrage.1955: Cambodia, Ethiopia, Peru, Honduras, and Nicaragua adopt woman suffrage.1956: Women given suffrage in Egypt, Somalia, Comoros, Mauritius, Mali, and Benin.1956: Pakistani women gain the right to vote in national elections.1957: Malaysia extends suffrage to women.1 957: Zimbabwe grants women the vote.1959: Madagascar and Tanzania give suffrage to women.1959: San Marino permits women to vote. 1960-1969 1960: Women of Cyprus, Gambia, and Tonga get suffrage.1960: Canadian women win full rights to stand for election, as Native women are also included.1961: Burundi, Malawy, Paraguay, Rwanda and Sierra Leone adopt woman suffrage.1961: Women in the Bahamas gain suffrage, with limits.1961: Women in El Salvador are permitted to stand for election.1962: Algeria, Monaco, Uganda, and Zambia adopts woman suffrage.1962: Australia adopts full woman suffrage (a few restrictions remain).1963: Women in Morocco, Congo, the  Islamic Republic of Iran  and Kenya gain suffrage.1964: Sudan adopts woman suffrage.1964: The Bahamas adopts full suffrage with restrictions.1965: Women gain full suffrage in Afghanistan, Botswana, and Lesotho.1967: Ecuador adopts full suffrage with a few restrictions.1968: Full woman suffrage adopted in Swaziland. 1970-1979 1970: Yemen adopts full suffrage.1970: Andorra permits women to vote.1971: Switzerland adopts woman suffrage, and the United States lowers the voting age for both men and women to eighteen by a Constitutional amendment.1972: Bangladesh grants woman suffrage.1973: Full suffrage granted to women in Bahrain.1973: Women permitted to stand for election in Andorra and San Marino.1974: Jordan and the Solomon Islands extend suffrage to women.1975: Angola,  Cape Verde, and Mozambique give suffrage to women.1976: Portugal adopts full woman suffrage with a few restrictions.1978: The Republic of Moldova adopts full suffrage with a few restrictions.1978: Women in Zimbabwe are able to stand for election.1979: Women in the Marshall Islands and Micronesia gain full suffrage rights. 1980-1989 1980: Iran gives women the vote.1984: Full suffrage granted to women of Liechtenstein.1984: In South Africa, voting rights are extended to Coloureds and Indians.1986: Central African Republic adopts woman suffrage. 1990-1999 1990: Samoan women gain full suffrage.1994: Kazakhstan grants women full suffrage.1994: Black women gain full suffrage in South Africa. 2000- 2005: Kuwaiti Parliament grants women of Kuwait full suffrage.