CRJ 322 Case Study 2: White-Collar Crimes

Case Study 2: White-Collar Crimes

Criteria

Unacceptable

Below 60% F

Meets Minimum Expectations

60-69% D

Fair

70-79% C

Proficient

80-89% B

Exemplary

90-100% A

1. Examine three (3) elements of white-collar crime and then determine whether or not defendant Julian Assange has committed a white-collar crime or any action that requires prosecution. Provide a rationale to support your position.

Weight: 20%

Did not submit or incompletely examined three (3) elements of white-collar crime and then did not submit or incompletely determined whether or not defendant Julian Assange committed a white-collar crime or any action that required prosecution. Did not submit or incompletely provided a rationale to support your position.

Insufficiently examined three (3) elements of white-collar crime and then insufficiently determined whether or not defendant Julian Assange committed a white-collar crime or any action that required prosecution. Insufficiently provided a rationale to support your position.

Partially examined three (3) elements of white-collar crime and then partially determined whether or not defendant Julian Assange committed a white-collar crime or any action that required prosecution. Partially provided a rationale to support your position.

Satisfactorily examined three (3) elements of white-collar crime and then satisfactorily determined whether or not defendant Julian Assange committed a white-collar crime or any action that required prosecution. Satisfactorily provided a rationale to support your position.

Thoroughly examined three (3) elements of white-collar crime and then thoroughly determined whether or not defendant Julian Assange committed a white-collar crime or any action that required prosecution. Thoroughly provided a rationale to support your position.

2. Summarize the Espionage Act, and identify three (3) of the most significant portions of the Act, which you believe Assange infringed upon. Provide support for your opinion.

Weight: 15%

Did not submit or incompletely summarized the Espionage Act, and did not submit or incompletely identified three (3) of the most significant portions of the Act, which you believe Assange infringed upon. Did not submit or incompletely provided support for your opinion.

Insufficiently summarized the Espionage Act, and insufficiently identified three (3) of the most significant portions of the Act, which you believe Assange infringed upon. Insufficiently provided support for your opinion.

Partially summarized the Espionage Act, and partially identified three (3) of the most significant portions of the Act, which you believe Assange infringed upon. Partially provided support for your opinion.

Satisfactorily summarized the Espionage Act, and satisfactorily identified three (3) of the most significant portions of the Act, which you believe Assange infringed upon. Satisfactorily provided support for your opinion.

Thoroughly summarized the Espionage Act, and thoroughly identified three (3) of the most significant portions of the Act, which you believe Assange infringed upon. Thoroughly provided support for your opinion.

3. Analyze the significance of the growing support for Assange and then examine the degree to which the support he receives is likely a result of his actions of committing a victimless and costless crime. Next, give your opinion as to whether Assange got the outcome that he intended as a result of his actions. Provide a rationale to support your response.

Weight: 25%

Did not submit or incompletely analyzed the significance of the growing support for Assange and then did not submit or incompletely examined the degree to which the support he received was likely a result of his actions of committing a victimless and costless crime. Did not submit or incompletely gave your opinion as to whether Assange got the outcome that he intended as a result of his actions. Did not submit or incompletely provided a rationale to support your response.

Insufficiently analyzed the significance of the growing support for Assange and then insufficiently examined the degree to which the support he received was likely a result of his actions of committing a victimless and costless crime. Insufficiently gave your opinion as to whether Assange got the outcome that he intended as a result of his actions. Insufficiently provided a rationale to support your response.

Partially analyzed the significance of the growing support for Assange and then partially examined the degree to which the support he received was likely a result of his actions of committing a victimless and costless crime. Partially gave your opinion as to whether Assange got the outcome that he intended as a result of his actions. Partially provided a rationale to support your response.

Satisfactorily analyzed the significance of the growing support for Assange and then satisfactorily examined the degree to which the support he received was likely a result of his actions of committing a victimless and costless crime. Satisfactorily gave your opinion as to whether Assange got the outcome that he intended as a result of his actions. Satisfactorily provided a rationale to support your response.

Thoroughly analyzed the significance of the growing support for Assange and then thoroughly examined the degree to which the support he received was likely a result of his actions of committing a victimless and costless crime. Thoroughly gave your opinion as to whether Assange got the outcome that he intended as a result of his actions. Thoroughly provided a rationale to support your response.

4. As a result of a number of overwhelming facts surrounding this case, debate the likelihood of the Department of Justice categorizing Assange’s behavior as deviant. Next, determine three (3) possible effects on the pursuit of justice if the Justice Department does or does not consider Assange’s behavior deviant. Justify your response.

Weight: 25%

Did not submit or incompletely debated the likelihood of the Department of Justice categorizing Assange’s behavior as deviant based on a number of overwhelming facts surrounding this case. Did not submit or incompletely determined three (3) possible effects on the pursuit of justice if the Justice Department does or does not consider Assange’s behavior deviant. Did not submit or incompletely justified your response.

Insufficiently debated the likelihood of the Department of Justice categorizing Assange’s behavior as deviant based on a number of overwhelming facts surrounding this case. Insufficiently determined three (3) possible effects on the pursuit of justice if the Justice Department does or does not consider Assange’s behavior deviant. Insufficiently justified your response.

Partially debated the likelihood of the Department of Justice categorizing Assange’s behavior as deviant based on a number of overwhelming facts surrounding this case. Partially determined three (3) possible effects on the pursuit of justice if the Justice Department does or does not consider Assange’s behavior deviant. Partially justified your response.

Satisfactorily debated the likelihood of the Department of Justice categorizing Assange’s behavior as deviant based on a number of overwhelming facts surrounding this case. Satisfactorily determined three (3) possible effects on the pursuit of justice if the Justice Department does or does not consider Assange’s behavior deviant. Satisfactorily justified your response.

Thoroughly debated the likelihood of the Department of Justice categorizing Assange’s behavior as deviant based on a number of overwhelming facts surrounding this case. Thoroughly determined three (3) possible effects on the pursuit of justice if the Justice Department does or does not consider Assange’s behavior deviant. Thoroughly justified your response.

5. 3 references

Weight: 5%

No references provided

Does not meet the required number of references; all references poor quality choices.

Does not meet the required number of references; some references poor quality choices.

Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices.

Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices.

6. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements

Weight: 10%

More than 8 errors present

7-8 errors present

5-6 errors present

3-4 errors present

0-2 errors present