GRP (Group Research Paper) focused on mental health courts and their impact on reducing recidivism in the criminal justice system.
Key Aspects of Your GRP Research Paper:
- Main Claim: Mental health courts are effective at reducing repeat offenses among individuals with mental illness by providing treatment-focused alternatives to incarceration.
- Structure: You’re using the ICE method (Introduce, Cite, Explain) for your body paragraphs.
- Evidence Requirements: Each body paragraph must include three pieces of evidence:
- Expert opinion (e.g., law enforcement officials, mental health advocates, scholars)
- Scientific or academic article
- Proof such as statistics, surveys, or reports
- Timeframe for Sources: All sources must be from the past five years.
- Counterargument Placement: The counterargument appears first in your outline, with its own set of three evidences.
- Conclusion: Should emphasize policy reform, sustainability, ethical concerns, and the long-term goal of integrating empathy and care into the justice system.
———————————————————————————- I’ve completed a draft of my GRP research paper on mental health courts. My instructor gave a lot of feedback—some through annotations on the draft itself, and others as general comments without annotations. I’ll provide everything so you can help me rewrite it based on her suggestions. You have full permission to revise the paper as needed and to replace any sources that aren’t strong, recent, or relevant enough to improve the overall quality. +i’ll provide the rubric and requirments for the final draft———————————————————————————- Her comments:
FORMATTING
- you have an extra space between paragraphs – it is also why your heading isn’t really single spaced – remove it – if you don’t know what this is, look here spacing Links to an external site.– basically you want O extra space and just double spaced
- your heading font looks weird – is it the wrong size?
INTRO
- a more academic style would be a stat – like “in 1980, this was at 10% ndnow it is 48% ….” or something to introduce the topic – PROVE that it is a controversy
THESIS
- look at the thesis canvas page – the language here is not right
- also maximizing and securing what benefits? and the establisment of what? and are policies and practice different? right now, I expect
claim 1 – reduce recidivism
claim 2 – maximize some benefit
claim 3 – secure a different benefit???
claim 4 – establish something
claim 5 – enforce laws that are more efective
claim 6 – enforce laws that are more equitable
claims 7 – practice
is that what you mean? maybe rethink the thesis
BACKGROUND
- you don’t have one – you need one – expalin the current status of this – crime in the us – how mental health courts are involved – what states use them – what they are exactly – no argument about good or bad – just explain so that you can argue “they are good” in the next part
TOPIC SENTENCES/EVIDENCE/CONNECTION
- #1 – “though mental offer benefits..” but you have never stated any benefits, so this doesn’t make sense – then if this is the ca, use ca language (see the canvas page) and focus ethical OR legal – and then evidence – your buns are too much – I wrote comments on the paper – and the last evidence is not the same right? the first two are probs and the last is a solution – those are in separate paragraphs
- #2 – “success in reducing” – before there is the ca “there are issues” – so it seems weird to now say “it is successful” – try to connect better – and the same issues with your buns and you need 3 pieces of evidence (and what is the 2021 idea? is this evidence? where is it from?
- #3 – “reducing cost” connect to the last idea – less arrests leads to this, right? so say that directly “This reduction in repeat crimes (summary of #2 claim) leads to (the connection) a reduction in the collective…. – and all the same comments on buns and connections
- #4 – “deep structural shortcomings” choose ONE shortcoming and focus – all the same issues with connection and buns and citations – and the last evidence about the number of courts should be in the background – then you end with “to counter” – this is a separate idea about solutions – it would be in a separate paragraph with 3 pieces of evidence
and then you end with “mental courts are not great” as the last argument but your thesis is “we should have them” – so this does not match
CONCLUSION
- just make sure to change to show the changes you will make in your paper
CITATIONS/REFERENCES
Citations
- if no authors, just use the organization like it is an author – no “research in this joural says” – just “this journals (date) writes… -but if there are authors, do not use anything else – use the authors
- if the year is at the front, use () – you can’t write it as part of the sentence like ‘In 2021, this journal wrote…”
- 3 authors = et al.
references
- not bold
- alphabetical order
- check capitla letter for titles
- something needs to be in italics for each thing that has a title and source
- aclu – this is the home page – your evidence is a critique – the link must take me to that page
- apa – link does not work
- ntcrc – link takes me to “painting the current picture”
- no retrieved from, unless it is a blog that might change often
LANGUAGE
ok
4/4 Handed in on time, with correct formatting and file name with all parts
3 /3 References and citations kind of OK
3/3 At least 5-6 articles – all matching to GRP sources
4/4 Changes from Making the Bun, applied to other paragraphs as well
3/3 Changes from peer review
1/3 Quality (A or B = 3, C= 2, D= 1 – less = 0)
the rubric grade is the quality grade of the draft – this will not be recorded and will change in response to changes of this draft to the final draft
also, i cannot give you a grade for this until all of your sources here match in the body, are linked correctly and named correctly in the grp sources assignment ———————————————————————————