Short Answer Example
In 'Property, Authority, and the Criminal Law' Douglas Hay identifies the paradox that as the number of capital statutes in Britain increased during the eighteenth century, the number of executions decreased. Why did Parliament create bloodier laws, yet not put them into practice? Isn't this an example of ineffective penal legislation? After reading the article, explain the paradox identified by Hay.
You will be graded according to how well you clearly identify and explain the essential features of Hay's argument, how well you support your claims with evidence from the text (include page numbers), and the insightfulness of your criticisms. I advise you to stay focused on the questions, to avoid lengthy quotes (nothing more than a sentence or two), and to not lead or conclude with sweeping generalities (e.g., Hay's argument is astoundingly good in every respect). Overall, the most important criterion in grading this think paper is the depth and quality of your thoughts. I have limited the paper to 5 pages to encourage you to think intensely (focusing on what is most relevant) and concisely (getting right to the point).
Student Responses:
Student A's response is very good—it answers the question directly, is clear, and provides a comprehensive explanation. Notice how they identify the three components of law as ideology and tie this in directly with their explanation of Hay's paradox.
Response of Student A
The paradox is clear: Why would Parliament not change the laws so they are applied consistently? Hay's argument is that the laws and the use of pardons are not necessarily opposed to one another; instead, they can be used together to mold the public's opinion. If the people believe that the elite's authority is legitimate…reform of the laws is not necessary. In order to establish their legitimacy, property owners used the criminal law as an ideological system to make the lower classes conform. Hay identifies three aspects of ideology: majesty, justice, and mercy.
The response of Student B is weaker because it is by no means clear that they understand what the paradox actually is. They don't even mention the word "paradox" in their response and don't link the three characteristics of law's ideological properties to their explanation of the paradox identified by Hay.
Response of Student B
Reform was not embraced fully at first by these ruling elites who wanted to protect property, but why not? Some explanations state this may have been because a police force's creation was refused. Also, it may have been because they were lacking in secondary punishments—. These two factors made them more willing to keep the death penalty to get back at the poor. During this time, three aspect of law as ideology emerged: majesty, justice, and mercy.