Monday, November 17, 2008
Rough Draft Edits
When I posted my rough draft on my blog, I had it all completed except for the last paragraph, or so I thought. I do not know why when writing my rough draft I was so absent minded. My original plan was to finish the last paragraph about the third article I had summarized, and then that's it, my paper would be over. After posting my rough draft on my blog and then reading over it, I noticed I had completely forgotten a conclusion, which was extremely silly of me. So I of course added a conclusion to my summaries. Besides the conclusions, I read over some of my classmates comments on my paper, and I realized I had not expressed my opinion on the summaries or the topics as it was instructed to do so in our assignment sheet. I had actually not put my personal opinion on any of the three articles anywhere in the paper. I am glad that my classmates had pointed that particular mistake out to me. Another change I had made from the rough to final draft was the way I transitioned from one paragraph to the next. I had not used transitions effectively in the rough draft. After looking over articles and helpful tools on transition sentences, I went through my paper and fixed the way I had used transitions. Other than the mistakes I noted above, I did not make any other changes from the rough draft to the final draft, excluding of course the correction of punctuation and my choice of words in some instances.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Citations
Rice, Stephen K. "Legal determinacy as presumptive fiction: the Blackmun papers on the primacy of life and the machinery of death." International Social Science Review 83.1-2 (Spring-Summer 2008): 60(11). Academic OneFile. Gale. University of Michigan - Dearborn. 6 Nov. 2008
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE.
Woody, Karen E. "Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law.(Book review)." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 98.2 (Wntr 2008): 699(9). Academic OneFile. Gale. University of Michigan - Dearborn. 6 Nov. 2008
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE.
Caudill, David S. "Genetic Witness: Science, Law, and Controversy in the Making of DNA Profiling.(Book review)." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 98.2 (Wntr 2008): 687(11). Academic OneFile. Gale. University of Michigan - Dearborn. 6 Nov. 2008
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE.
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE.
Woody, Karen E. "Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law.(Book review)." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 98.2 (Wntr 2008): 699(9). Academic OneFile. Gale. University of Michigan - Dearborn. 6 Nov. 2008
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE.
Caudill, David S. "Genetic Witness: Science, Law, and Controversy in the Making of DNA Profiling.(Book review)." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 98.2 (Wntr 2008): 687(11). Academic OneFile. Gale. University of Michigan - Dearborn. 6 Nov. 2008
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE.
Draft for Summarys
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.
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:
Comments (Atom)
