Race and Jury Selection in Capital Cases: Examining the Impact of Foster vs Chatman on Modern Death Penalty Jurisprudene.

This paper should use academic and /or legal resources to go into detail on a topic such as cost,
public opinion, deterrence, innocence, or whatever else interests you. You might explore a
particular legal case in detail or use other methodologies.
The books used in this course are: deadly justice by Frank Baumgartnerand Right here, right now:Life stories from America’s Death Row.
These papers should make use of at least 3 academic sources beyond the text for this
course, not counting any journalistic sources that might also be helpful.
The assignment is expected to be approximately six double spaced pages, or 1,800 words.
So, what makes a good term paper?
Generally, a political science professor would expect something like the following structure in
the paper:
Title, name, instructor and TA, Class and section number, date on the title page. Your title
should reflect not only the topic, but also hint at your conclusion.
Introduction: Clearly state the question you are going to answer or the point you are going to
illustrate. Explain why this matters. Give an over-view of what you are going to do in the paper.
Literature Review: what have other people found when they have studied this topic? Remember
you need at least 3 academic or law review sources for full credit. (In a 6-page paper we can’t
expect your lit. review to be a comprehensive assessment of all that has been done before, but
it’s on you to hit some good and important previous studies.) The goal here is first to learn by
reading up on what others have done, but also to situate your particular study in a larger literature
that has explored similar things.
Theory and hypotheses: What are your expectations and theoretical perspectives on your
question? Your theory could be as simple as: The decentralized nature of the US criminal legal
system ensures wide variability in death sentencing rates. (This qualifies because you have a
cause – the decentralized system – leading to an effect – wide variability. That’s the key: have
something that you propose is the explanation of something else.) Then, if the theory is true,
what testable expectations would derive from that? These are your hypotheses, and you may
have several of them. These should be directly testable given the information you are gathering,
so that you can say at the end that you reject or that you accept the different hypotheses. (Don’t
have any dangling hypotheses, ones you propose but then never come back to with a test. The2
paper should be internally coherent. That means, don’t raise things that you don’t answer. Also,
don’t answer questions you did not pose. If you found an interesting finding, but there was no
reason given in the paper why you were looking for it, that’s bad. Either don’t talk about it, or
else revise your introduction and theory so that you refer to it and so that the reader is never
surprised by what is coming at them. The paper should be completely internally consistent.
Every question that is posed is answered. Every answer that is given is in response to a question
that was posed.)
Data, Results, and Analysis: If this were a 30 page paper, each of these would be separate
sections. But here is where you explain what you did: You explored three cases of wrongful
convictions; you explored rates of death sentencing in different states or counties within a state;
you examined the cost of the death penalty in x states; you looked at some cases that led to death
and compared to some cases that led to life; anyway, here is where you explain what data you
collected. If appropriate, explain here the sources you used and why you chose the particular
cases that you chose.
Then, knowing what you collected, what did you find? Describe the results. If it’s a wrongful
conviction, explain what happened. If it’s rates in different places, give a table showing how the
rates differ. In whatever way is appropriate for your topic, show what the data or your research
reveals.
Next, analyze it. Make sense of it. Put the pieces together. Test your hypotheses. Explain what
pattern are in the data (if any). Tell the reader if the patterns you observe are consistent with your
theoretical expectations. Test your particular hypotheses and explain which ones were
confirmed, which were not confirmed, and why.
(Note that the three paragraphs above are each separate from one-another. That is to suggest that
in your paper, it’s best to do one thing at a time. First explain the data collection. Then describe
the results. Then analyze the results. But don’t get it all mixed up into a big mess by going out of
order. That means, for example, don’t analyze your results before you tell us where the data
come from and why and how you collected it…)
Conclusion: Summarize your findings and then discuss the implications of them. Why do we
care? What does it mean? Does it suggest that there are constitutional problems? Refer back to
the questions you raised in the introduction and reach your conclusions on those questions. If
there were authors in the literature review whose findings are consistent or inconsistent with your
results, explain that. Is that because one of you is right and one is wrong, or is it because your
studies were not exactly comparable? With regards to your own theory and hypotheses, can you
say now that the theory is valuable, or is it flawed? Finally, end with a paragraph discussing the
importance or substantive conclusions that your study can support.
References: Have a bibliography. Generally, in the text, use the format that’s in Deadly Justice
(so you’d say (Jones 2024) in the text and then have the references listed at the end.
Examples of citation forms:3
Baldus, David C., Charles A. Pulaski, Jr., and George G. Woodworth. 1983. Comparative
Review of Death Sentences: An Empirical Study of the Georgia Experience. Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 74, 3: 661–753.
Baldus, David C., George G. Woodworth, and Charles A. Pulaski Jr. 1990. Equal Justice and the
Death Penalty: A Legal and Empirical Analysis. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Barry, Dan and Abby Ellin. 2021. He Never Touched the Murder Weapon. Alabama Sentenced
Him to Die. New York Times. December 5.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/05/us/nathaniel-woods-alabama-sentenced.html
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)
McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 (1971)
Reminders:
Due date: 5pm, Wed April 17, through the Canvas site of your recitation section.
The paper should be approximately 1,800 words, which generally works out to six pages double
spaced. This document right here is over 1,250 words.
Citations: At least 3 academic cites IN ADDITION TO Deadly Justice or other things read in
class and in addition to any journalistic or facts-based sources related to the data collection you
did, for example facts of the crime in a set of cases or something like that. You need to use as
many of those as needed, but then no matter how many of those you have, you also need an
introduction and a conclusion where you discuss broader questions and that is where the
academic sources come in.Below is the rubric for the paper