Criminal law and politics are two areas of study that I am quite interested in. I’ve decided to double major in criminal justice and political science, so I felt the three articles summarized were appropriate and extremely interesting. The journals from which the articles were taken out of are scholary journals in which focus on the areas of political science and criminal justice. “Putting Pandora on Trial,” Legal determinacy as presumptive fiction: the Blackmun papers on the primacy of life and the machinery of death,” and “DNA and the Genealogy of Scientific Truth in the Courtroom” are the three articles that have been summarized in the remainder of the paper.
In her article, “Putting Pandora on Trial,” published in The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 2008, Karen E. Woody analyzes the ideas and conclusions of Mark Drumbl’s, Atrocity, Punishment and International Law. Woody agrees with Drumbl’s justification of international criminal law and the punishments used. The idea that international criminal atrocities and Western notions of common crime be punished using the same methods is unfair and inhumane. Woody analyzes Drumbl’s notion that criminal law punishes social deviants. International law must look at punishment of social deviants in a different way than common criminal law. International atrocities are made up of more than just the one or two people who go against what is socially acceptable. They are made up of genocides and unthinkable atrocities with hundreds if not thousands of people that could be held responsible for the crime. It involves societies as a whole. The way international law punishes these atrocities is to be more drastic and in a different manor than would be any regular crime. Woody praised Drumbl’s “ability to analyze the meta-goals and lofty principles that justify international criminal law and its punishments while also being extremely detailed with specific examples.” Unlike Woody’s article, “Legal determinacy as presumptive fiction: the Blackmun papers on the primacy of life and the machinery of death,” focuses on the judges who make decisions on laws and the classic model of legal decision making.
Stephen K. Rice, the author of “Legal determinacy as presumptive fiction: the Blackmun papers on the primacy of life and the machinery of death,” written in International Social Science Review, analyze the papers of Justice Harry A. Blackmun. Blackmun served as a Supreme Court Justice and ruled in many important issues. Rice’s argument based on the Blackmun papers is whether Judges rule by law, or by personal preferences and their own morals. He questions the judicial making-process and whether it is fair and abides by the laws. Based on Blackmun’s papers, Rice concluded that “"normative quietism" in law, that is, jurists who rule based on personal predilection, or "hunch-based" decision-making” was very common and the concept applied to Justices as well. Rice’s main goal of this article is to determine whether or not there is a bias on the way Justices rule, and whether or not they use the law as the way they make decisions, or if they simply use their own gut and morals in the decision-making process. He concluded from Blackmun’s papers that a majority of Justices can be influenced and swayed by others in regards to their arguments and ideas on how cases should be ruled. Blackmun’s papers being released to the public in a sense tainted the U.S. court system. DNA and forensic science is the argument David S. Caudill addresses in his article.
David S. Caudill wrote “DNA and the Genealogy of Scientific Truth in the Courtroom” in the journal; The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Caudill wrote a review of JD Aronson’s book, Genetic Witness: Science, Law & Controversy in the Making of DNA Profiling.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think your paper is filled with fact after fact. I like that you told me which article your quotes came from, who said it, and said more than just one idea for a topic. I love criminal justice..well i love the law shows anyway, so this was cool to read about. One thing that i think would make it better though, which is something i always think helps, is your opinion. With a passion for this yourself, do you agree with their beliefs?
I think your topic is great and very interesting. I would agree with the above comment to add a bit of your own opinion. I would also say that for all of us who don't know anything about criminal justice, there were a few parts where I was confused as to what you were talking about and had to go back and read it. I would suggest you make sure that your essay will be easy to understand by anyone that read it. But other than that, seems like you're on the right track!
This is indeed an interesting topic to write about. I do agree, I feel that international crimes are handled differently than regular law. I think you should put more of your input when summarizing the articles, like the others have said, and I feel like your first few sentences are somewhat repetitive and you mention criminal justice and political science quite a lot. Other than that, it's really interesting!
I think your draft was well written. Although i found some grammatical errors. I think if you just read over the paper again, you can develop a keen sense on what needs to be fixed. I did see many repetitive words, i think those sentences could be better composed. Good job!
Criminal justice is a very good topic. Your paper is filled with well derived facts and your citations were done very well. Although you need to fix some gramatical errors, your paper is headed in the right direction.
Thank you for all of the comments and tips for my rough draft. I really do appreciate it, and all fo the comments helped me with the changes I made to my final draft.
Post a Comment