EXAM I

Order Description
•Ross, Thomas. (1996). Just Stories: How the Law Embodies Racism and Bias. Boston: Beacon Press.

•Reiman, Jeffrey & Leighton, Paul. (2013). The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, 10th Edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
EXAM I
Bring writing utensil(s) and paper. You will have a maximum of 2 hours (from 6-8 pm) during class time to complete the exam. There will be two essays, worth 50 points each, for a total of 100 points. The potential essay questions are below. No materials may be used during the exam.

1) In this essay, you will discuss law and narrative. First, define what is meant by “narrative” according to the Ross text. Next, explain what it means to say that “the state law embodies those narratives” (Ross, p. 14). Lastly, to support your explanation, provide three examples in detail. These examples may draw on specific legal cases or larger concepts, but they must be explained thoroughly and clearly support your argument.
Definition 4
Explanation 10
Examples 36 (12 x 3)
TOTAL: 50*

2) In this essay, you will discuss themes that persist in contemporary legal rhetoric about race. First, identify and define two main rhetorical themes about race as discussed in the Ross text, Chapter Two. Next, discuss two landmark historical Supreme Court cases (from the 1800s or early 1900s) that illustrated these themes. In your discussion, be clear and thorough as you demonstrate how these themes emerged in the results of these decisions. In contemporary times, public rhetoric is nonracist, yet threads of the themes persist in the law. For the final part of your essay, identify and discuss a Supreme Court case in your assigned reading from the 1970s to present that illustrates how a rhetorical theme you identified persists in present day legal reasoning.
Two themes 4
Two SC cases discussion 30 (15 each)
Contemp SC case discussion 16
TOTAL: 50*

3) In this essay, you will discuss themes embedded in the legal rhetoric about poverty. First, identify and define two main rhetorical themes about poverty as discussed in the Ross text, Chapter Three. Next, discuss two Supreme Court decisions about welfare/AFDC that reflect these themes. Be sure to clearly demonstrate how these themes emerged in the results of these decisions. Finally, discuss how the themes in this rhetoric perpetuate injustice against the poor.
Two themes 4
Two SC cases discussion 30
How themes perpetuate
injustice against poor 16
TOTAL: 50*

4) Reiman argues that at every stage, the criminal justice system “weeds out the wealthy,” presenting a distorted image of the crime problem. In this essay, first identify the three major stages of the criminal justice process to which Reiman refers. Next, provide three substantive examples that support Reiman’s argument at each stage and discuss/explain each example (for a total of 9 examples). Be clear as to how your examples tie back into the main theme of “weeding out the wealthy.”
3 stages discussion: 5
3 examples first stage 15 (3 examples @ 5 pts each)
3 examples second stage 15 (3 examples @ 5 pts each)
3 examples third stage 15 (3 examples @ 5 pts each)
TOTAL: 50*
5) Reiman states that our criminal justice policies persist in their failure to achieve justice. First, define historical inertia as it is used by Reiman. Next, discuss the two reasons why we do not achieve lasting justice in the criminal justice system. For each reason, discuss relevant ideological messages and provide examples to support your points. Finally, explain how these reasons focus only on the individual and direct attention away from social responsibility (how are we complicit)?
Historical inertia definition 5
Two reasons, discussions, examples 40 (20 pts each)
Individual focus/complicity 5
TOTAL: 50*

6) According to Ross in Chapter 4, the law that governs women’s lives is a product of both interpretation and commitment. First, define each of these terms, and then explain how state law emerges from a combination of the two. Next, consider that interpretations of “unwelcomeness” in the law’s response to sexual harassment and “force” in the law’s response to rape incorporate narratives about women and sex. Draw from your assigned reading to discuss two examples of how “unwelcomeness” interpretations play a role in sexual harassment case/event outcomes. Then, draw from your assigned reading to discuss two examples of how “force” interpretations play a role in rape case/event outcomes (4 examples total). These examples can be historical or contemporary, but you must clearly show the links between interpretation and law in each case/event discussed.
Definitions and explanation: 10
Examples and discussion: 40 (10 pts each x 4)
TOTAL: 50*
* In order to earn the full amount of points, not only must complete information be provided in each section of the essay question being answered, but the writer must:
1) Demonstrate clear, thoughtful reflection on and understanding of class material and mastery of key concepts
2) Provide responses that are sufficiently substantive and in-depth, with developed and considered points, rather than lists or incomplete arguments
3) Provide responses that appropriately reference the class readings and/or discussion
4) Provide responses that are clear and flow smoothly from one thought to the next
5) Provide responses that are written in proper essay format, with complete sentences, few grammatical and spelling errors and proper punctuation

Points will be deducted for any aspect of an essay in which a section is incomplete or incorrect. Point(s) will also be deducted from the maximum possible in any given section of an essay, even if the essential information is provided, if:
1) Outside or irrelevant information is included, or the response includes unsubstantiated information (1-5 point deduction, depending on points allocated in the given section)
2) Part of a section’s responses are underdeveloped, unclear, disjointed or incomplete (1-10 point deduction, depending on points allocated in a given section)
3) The response is not written in essay form, does not flow smoothly or is difficult to follow (1-5 point deduction, depending on points allocated in a given section)