Module III Final Assignment

Amanda Aghos
Comp 106 Module 3

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 articles arguments were very compelling and provided excellent evidence to support their arguments. The journals from which the articles were taken out of are scholarly 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.” There are numerous different crimes that people commit. Some crimes are much more horrendous than others. It would be silly for our legal system to punish someone who steals a loaf of bread the same way they would punish an individual who commits rape and murder. The punishment should ultimately fit the crime, whether the law is within the boundaries of the USA or international law. 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. Ruling based on personal preference and personal bias, in my opinion is one of the major problems with the U.S court system. When a case is presented with lack of concrete evidence, judges and jurors seem to rely on their own knowledge and their own personal beliefs, or the beliefs of their co-justices in deciding a ruling in a case. That is one of the worst things that could be exposed by a former Justice of the Supreme Court. 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. The article questions heavily whether or not DNA evidence can be used as a reliable source or evidence in the courtroom. When DNA evidence was first introduced in the courtroom, it was very unreliable. DNA testing and evidence has advanced so much in the past decade or so, where jurors use it as definite evidence when ruling a case. Aronson does not believe that DNA evidence is as solid as scientists, as well as lawyers claim it to be. He believes there are many flaws with using DNA evidence in the courtroom. Caudill agrees with Aronson, he believes that anyone viewing DNA profiling from a different perspective, not in the perspective of a lawyer, judge, or scientist, people will realize that DNA profiling is not as perfect as people in those professions make it seem. I agree with Caudill and Aronson’s view on DNA profiling. There can be many complications with DNA profiling; I do not believe that juries and other authorities should rely heavily on DNA evidence in the courtroom.
Each article clearly stated their arguments and exactly what side of the topic they supported. Woody, Rice, and Caudill each had their own perspective on somewhat linked topics. Punishment for international law, DNA evidence, and the Blackmun papers all came together in the sense that each had to do with the United States court system and its flaws. The three articles were very persuasive and in my personal opinion very informative on the corruption of the United States, and the Worlds legal systems.