Rubric for P3
- An essay of 500-1,000 words identifying the arguments counter to your position and the stakeholders in the issue you are writing about (with at least 3 sources).
Specific Quality Criteria:
- Counter Arguments: The arguments discussed in the essay will not necessarily be in binary opposition to the writer’s main argument. Instead, while some may be directing opposing, the writer should take pains to identify all of the positions within the issue. [For example, in the abortion debate, rarely is the argument that no abortion be legal under any circumstances put against the argument that any abortion at any time be legal. There are many degrees and nuances of the argument.]
- Stakeholders: The writer should identify and describe all of those groups that have a stake in the issue. It is not enough, usually, to say that everyone has a stake; it is better to discuss different stakeholder’s distance from the issue (some are close to it (most affected/most concerned) while others are more far away from it).
General Quality Criteria:
- Logically organized: The interdependence of the arguments should be readily evident to the reader as too the stakeholders’ relationship to the issue as well as one another.
- Thoroughness: Most of the counter arguments and stakeholders should be represented in the essay.
- Interesting: The essay should be engaging through the use of lively language and intelligent engagement with the research.
- Grammar/Mechanics/Usage/Style: The essay will generally be written in a way such that it conforms to the generic principles and conventions of academic English.
- Documentation: All sources, as well as the essay itself, should use the MLA citation system correctly.
In 1976 the United States Supreme court reinstated the death penalty. Consequently, when an accused was convicted for a crime bordering on the deliberate termination of another’s life that is murder, it was often the case that the convicted party is sentenced to serve a death penalty. It was hoped that justice would prevail by meeting out a similar experience to the perpetrator of the vice.
Nonetheless, this function has not always been served. For example, it is not true that by sentencing to death the one has killed, we would have succinctly punished the vice. I feel we can alsolet the convicted live to suffer for his actions in a jail cell. This underlines the need to establish whether justice systems were established to rehabilitate or merely offer retribution to the victims of crimes.
* Once your purchase is processed by paypal you will be redirected back to this page and you'll have
the option to download the paper. We'll also send the paper to your paypal email address as proof of purchase.