Jurisprudence Statement

I. INTRODUCTION (~1 PARAGRAPH)
a. Include a very clear thesis early in your paper. Even include a direct statement like my preferred judicial philosophy is _____.
b. Include a clear preview or roadmap summarizing the points you will make throughout the rest of the paper.
i. I believe my judicial philosophy is superior to others because of Reason A, B, and C.
ii. To demonstrate and supplement my argument, I will engage the opinions from cases X, Y, and Z and demonstrate how justices L, M, and N have utilized ____ approach to make sound decisions that uphold the ideals of the Constitution.
iii. While some critique my approach for 1, 2, 3, reason – the benefits of my approach far outweigh any of these considerations.
iv. For purposes of illustrating this – I’m doing examples of three – but that is not specified in the rubric.
c. I would avoid an overly long “fluffy” introduction. I would avoid saying “Webster’s Dictionary defines jurisprudence as…” This is a 5-7-page paper, so I would recommend spending more time on the body of your argument.
II. BODY OF PAPER – SUPPORT YOUR PHILOSOPHY (~3-5 PAGES)
a. First – assume your audience knows nothing. Actual describe what your preferred judicial philosophy is. This should take approximately a paragraph or so. This is a great (and easy) way to ensure you are incorporating the book or PowerPoint. This may also be a place to incorporate one of the three external sources you need to utilize in this section. In general, provide a definition/description/overview of your approach.
b. From there, I would organize my essay thematically. Here is one virtue or strength of this approach. Again the textbook does well to engage +’s and –‘s of each legal framework. There is also a copious amount written about each perspective. I would use this virtue or strength as my point of entry to identify Court opinions that used this approach, reached what I consider to be the right outcome, and highlight the Justice(s) that utilized this approach. If I organized my essay this way, I could see a virtue or strength taking up at least a page or so. I would definitely need to incorporate sources (internal/external) to help me back up this section.
c. Then I could add another virtue or strength and do the same thing. There is not a set number of strengths/virtues you need to identify. But I would be surprised if students could write a complete defense of their preferred approach with a single reason. So in addition to identifying a second virtue, perhaps I identify a third or fourth virtue of my approach as well. This is where I would identify the difference between students who might struggle to get to the 5-7 page expectation versus students that experience no difficulty. There is likely more than a single reason why your approach is your preference.
d. If I didn’t fold things into the above discussion, then I would want to ensure that I’m meeting the expectations from this part of the rubric. I’ve included three external sources in this section, I have enumerated specific cases, I’ve identified a historical and current Justice that has utilized this approach.
III. BODY OF PAPER – IDENTIFYING SHORTCOMINGS (1-3 PAGES)
a. Again – assume your audience knows nothing. Actually go ahead and walk me through why some dislike your preferred judicial philosophy. You do not need to specifically enumerate another judicial philosophy or philosophies (it may help) – but the strengths or virtues of the other approaches are likely at the expense of the shortcomings from your perspective. So I would treat this as a chance to demonstrate that I’m familiar with this broader debate (but ultimately am still going to back my perspective
b. I would again organize thematically. I’d incorporate the textbook/PowerPoints to identify the shortcomings of my approach. I’d definitely bring in outside sources (as this section of the paper requires 2 external sources). If possible, I would incorporate a Court case where the majority opinion used my preferred philosophy but reached the “wrong outcome” and/or that reflects this theme/shortcoming. A dissenting opinion would be a really great place to identify a judge who was critical of my preferred philosophy. Similar to the depth and length of the support section – I would approximate this would take at least a page to do well.
c. As this is worth less in terms of the rubric – I would spend less energy here. The support section definitely should be longer and a more central focus. There is not a set number of critiques/shortcomings you need to identify. Again, if organized differently, I’d review the rubric to ensure I’m meeting the expectations for this section.
d. Whether you incorporate this as part of this section or have a longer discussion to conclude the paper – you do want to come back and identify why this critique ultimately does not diminish your preference. Why do the virtues/strengths outweigh the shortcomings or critiques (especially if you consider them to be valid)?
IV. CONCLUSION (~1 PARAGRAPH)
a. If you are incorporating section d above into the body of the paper, then you can succinctly summarize your main points. Restate the benefits/virtues of the approach. If you are not incorporating section d above – then you really need to spend a bit more time summarizing the paper (so it does not read – well some people think my approach is wrong, “The End”)

Last Completed Projects