Substantive Criminal Law

CRM 2244 Substantive Criminal Law

Weekly Writing Assignment Rubric 50 Points

Criterion Exemplary (9-10 points)

Accomplished (8 points)

Developing (7 points) Beginning (0–6 points)

Focus/Thesis

Identifies and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the main issues/problems in the assignment. Excellent summary and conclusion.

Conveys topic and key question(s). Clearly delineates subtopics to be reviewed. General thesis statement. Summary/conclusion recaps the topic and key findings.

Identifies and demonstrates an acceptable understanding of most of the issues/problems. Summary/conclusion recaps the topic and key findings.

Does not adequately convey topic. Does not describe subtopics to be reviewed. Lacks adequate theses statement. Inadequate or no summary/conclusion.

Content/Subject Knowledge

Makes appropriate and powerful connections between identified issues/ problems and the strategic concepts studied in the course readings and lectures.

Makes appropriate connections between most identified issues/ problems and the general concepts studied in the course readings and lectures.

Makes appropriate but somewhat vague connections between identified issues/problems and concepts studied in readings and lectures

Makes inappropriate or little connection between issues identified and the concepts studied in the readings; supplements case study, if at all

Critical Thinking Skills

Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view. Draws warranted, judicious, non- fallacious conclusions. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.

Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Offers analyses and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view. Justifies analyses and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.

Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. in most circumstances. Identifies some relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Basic analyses and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view. Incomplete analyses and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view. Bias and preconceptions evident that detract from a true critical review.

Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Fails to identify strong, relevant counter- arguments. Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Justifies few results or procedures, seldom explains reasons. Maintains or defends views based on self- interest or preconceptions regardless of the evidence or reasons.

Organization

Paper clearly discusses topics and subtopics; it is strongly organized with transitions linking all topics.

Paper discusses topics and subtopics and is well organized with clear transitions.

Paper discusses topics and subtopics but is poorly organized. Attempts to provide transitions.

Paper is not logically organized and lacks transitions between sentences and paragraphs.

Writing Conventions

Demonstrates clarity, conciseness and correctness; formatting is appropriate and writing is free of grammar and spelling errors.

Grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors occur rarely in the paper and do not interfere with reading the paper.

Occasional grammar or spelling errors, but still a clear presentation of ideas; lacks organization.

Writing is unfocused, rambling, or contains serious errors; poorly organized and does not follow specified guidelines.