Criminal Justice

Answer two of the following. Each of your answers should be no longer than
(PAGE and HALF).

They are double-spaced typewritten and turned in through safe-assign May 5 at 11:59 p.m.

Good grammar and clear writing are essential. Make sure that each sentence is clear and grammatical. Make sure that each paragraph has one main point and explains that point clearly. Make sure your answers are logically structured. You need to justify your ideas, and you need to provide the strongest arguments you can when asked to make arguments. Make sure that you do not plagiarize any work in your exam—you will be marked down or fail if you do so. 

A satisfactory paper (C grade) needs to demonstrate a basic understanding of the central ideas of the philosophers and legal cases under discussion and to have a coherent stance towards those ideas. A good paper (B grade) needs to have a strong command of the central ideas of the philosophers and legal cases under discussion and to have a plausible argument about the strength of the arguments under consideration. An excellent paper (A grade) needs to have a strong command of both the central ideas and the peripheral arguments of the philosophers and legal cases under discussion and also needs to have a convincing argument about the arguments under consideration. The following criteria will be used to grade your paper:

clarity — avoid wasted words and impassioned rhetoric;

organization — make sure you follow an outline;

the cogency of argument and general persuasiveness — give reasons for your own views; and

Originality.

1- Mens Rea and Rape.
What is Doug Husak’s argument about the mistake defense in rape, what for him makes a mistake of fact defense reasonable? What would he say about the use of reasonable mistakes in two of the three following decisions: Morgan, Rusk, and Sherry gave his arguments about men’s rea and reasonable mistake? What does McGregor say about Husak’s view of consent?

2- Punishment.
Explain the differences between the deterrence theory and retributive theory of punishment and how Rawls in “Two Concepts of Rules” tries to reconcile the two approaches. Consider two of the following punishment cases, Tison v. Arizona, Furman v. Georgia, Gregg v. Georgia, Herrera v. Texas, do they fit into one or another of those theoretical frameworks i.e. deterrence theory or retributivism? If so, why, if not, why not?

3- Property.
How, according to Lori Andrews, has the law looked at the human body? Give some examples and explain the Moore decision and what Andrews says about it. How would John Locke and David Hume given their theories of property argue about property in your own body?