Paper Three - Punishment (Subject to Revision)

Due: Dec. 10

The final paper will focus on the philosophical justification of punishment. You will need to address the following question about either Gregg v. Georgia or Kansas v. Hendricks: Did the justice who wrote either the opinion or dissent in one of these cases misunderstand one of the theories of the justification of punishment? In addressing this you will examine the opinion or dissent from one case and evaluate whether or not the justice’s argument accurately utilizes the notion of punishment defended by either the deterrence theory or the retributivist theory.You will be expected to focus on the theory of punishment you would defend and support it against one criticism. This means you have to 1) do a critical analysis of the opinion or dissent (which will include an explanation of the justification of punishment presented by the theory) and 2) present an argument in support of your position on whether the theory of punishment supports or does not support punishing the person in the case.

To summarize the elements of the paper, it must include the following parts:

  1. The basic facts of the case
  2. The justice’s argument as it relates to both the deterrence and retributivist theories of punishment (counts double)
  3. A detailed explanation of the justification of punishment you will focus on (counts double)
  4. Your argument on whether the justice has accurately applied the theory of punishment you are focusing on (counts double)
  5. Your argument on whether the theory would justify punishing either Gregg or Hendricks in the way the court ruled (counts double)
  6. An overall score (points for failing to include sources will be deducted from this element)

This paper will require two additional sources of information.

Rubric (0-4 point scale)

Each of the six items will be assessed on the following 5 point scale. Items 2-5 will be weighted to count twice as much as the other items (a total of 40 points possible). Grades will be determined by dividing the total number earned by 10.

4 - Exceptional
3 - Very Good
2 - Average
1 - Seriously Deficient
0 - Unacceptable
Element has been accurately, clearly and completely presented and clarified. All ideas of the element have been identified and preliminary explanations have been provided. There are a few points that are unclear or inaccurate Basic ideas of the element have been listed or identified but not explained. Major ideas of the element are missing but some have been identified. The element of the assignment is missing and/or entirely inaccurately presented.

 

Philosophy of Law Page

Back to Schedule

Back to Syllabus

Back to Main Page


 

 

 

Paper 3 - Punishment
teall@msmc.edu
Mount Saint Mary College, Newburgh, New York