Does a ‘tough on crime’ stance helps reduce drug related offending in Australia？

Research Essay LAWS1110 Sem 2 2020 Marking Rubric Rubric component

High distinction (≥ 80%) Distinction to High-Credit (65%-79%) Low-Credit to Pass (50%-64%) Fail (< 50%)

Argument 30 marks

Exceptional discussion of identified issues in relation to appropriate theoretical approach; response is exceptionally justified in terms of relevant literature; argument exceptionally presented; successfully convinces reader of reasonableness and appropriateness of conclusions.

Successful discussion of identified issues in relation to appropriate theoretical approach; response is appropriate and justified in terms of relevant literature; argument well presented; generally convinces reader of reasonableness and appropriateness of conclusions.

Attempts to discuss identified issues in relation to theoretical approach; attempts to justify response in terms of literature, but familiarity with relevant literature not demonstrated; argument is not well presented; unsuccessfully attempts to convince reader of reasonableness and appropriateness of conclusions.

Unsuccessful/no attempt to discuss identified issues in relation to theoretical approach; Issues not identified or minimally identified; response it not justified or appropriate in terms of relevant literature; no clear argument presented; fails/does not attempt to convince reader of reasonableness and appropriateness of conclusions

Research and evidence 50 marks

Exceptional critical review of evidence from a wide range of sources, including academic and government research and integration with empirical crime data; obvious evidence of thorough background research; selected studies are entirely relevant to the argument.

Successful critical review evidence from a reasonable number of studies; evidence of background research; successful attempt to integrate relevant empirical crime data; selected studies are mostly relevant to the argument.

Attempts to critically review evidence from the required number of studies; limited evidence that background research was done; unsuccessful attempt to integrate relevant empirical crime data; selected studies are not always relevant to the argument.

No attempt to critically review evidence; minimal use of sources; no evidence of background research; no attempt to integrate relevant empirical crime data; no connection between selected sources and the argument.

Originality 10 marks

Argument is original; concepts are related to each other in interesting ways; excellent exploration of the relevant literature and clear appreciation of how this paper fits in.

Argument is interesting, but plays it safe and does not push boundaries; good exploration or the relevant literature and good appreciation of how this paper fits in.

Argument is descriptive rather than analytical; some exploration of the relevant literature, but a failure to appreciate how this paper fits in.

Argument is incoherent; limited/no exploration of relevant literature.

Style and structure 10 marks

Exceptional structure; guides reader through text effectively; extremely well written; work presentation, vocabulary, and referencing style entirely appropriate; very few minor spelling and/or grammatical problems.

Good structure but could be improved; overall well written; overall appropriate presentation, vocabulary, and referencing style; frequent minor spelling and/or grammatical problems.

Adequate structure but lacks clarity; writing has significant room for improvement (brief/wordy in places); a presentation, vocabulary, and/or referencing has obvious, persistent weaknesses.

Presentation is very poor; no clear structure (ideas and paragraphs are disjointed and do not flow smoothly); very poorly written; inappropriate style, vocabulary, and/or referencing throughout; frequent major problems.