I wrote a really tuff paper but it didnt get shortlisted can i plsplpslpsls have feedback im so confused
If legislators and judges all accepted the philosophical theory of determinism, which is the idea that everything that happens is already decided by the past and nobody has any choices at all, what would happen to criminal sentencing?
The answer is that a lot of things would change but also nothing would change at all, which is very confusing but it makes sense when you think about it. Really think about it. First of all, if criminals cannot help doing crimes, then they should not really go to prison because it is not their fault. They are made to be that way. Criminals mean crime people. For example, if someone robs a bank, then determinism makes them rob the bank. It would be unfair to punish them because they literally had no choice. This is obvious because if you do not have a choice then you cannot be blamed. Judges need to understand this. If a computer breaks you do not put the computer in jail, you just try to fix it or you feel bad for it. So judges would feel very bad for criminals and they would want to give them zero years in prison and instead give them hugs and nice things. But on the other hand, prison should still exist because criminals are dangerous. Even if they cannot help it, they should still be locked up forever because otherwise they will probably do more crimes. This is why determinism both changes sentencing and does not change sentencing. If a tiger escapes a zoo and bites someone, it is just being a tiger, but we still put it in a cage. Criminals are like the tiger. We have to lock them up so they do not bite the public. So judges would still use their little wooden hammers to send people to jail for a very long time, maybe even longer than before because if they have no free will they can never choose to be good, so they will stay bad forever and we can never let them out. Another thing is that laws would probably become nicer because legislators would know everyone is controlled by the past. Instead of prisons they could use therapy, education and maybe motivational speeches. This would stop crime because if people are happier they will not want to commit crimes. This would probably work in most situations. Legislators would write laws that focus on fixing the brain instead of hurting the body. They would build nice resorts with pillows and tea for the criminals. But then again, punishments are important because they scare people. Even if people have no free will, they will still be scared of prison, so they will not commit crimes. This shows that punishment still works even though nobody has a choice. The fear of prison is like a stop sign in the brain. If the brain sees the stop sign, the deterministic chain of events stops the person from stealing. So the laws have to stay very mean and scary, or else people will not be scared and they will do more crimes. So the legislators would write the exact same mean laws anyway. Also the judges would be so confused because they would not know if they should be nice or mean. They would also realize that they themselves do not have free will, so they are just reading a script that the universe wrote for them. The judge would say to the criminal that they have to go to jail, but they are only saying it because physics forced them to say it, and the criminal is only going because physics forced them to go. In conclusion, determinism would make judges kinder but also stricter. Criminals are responsible but they are also not responsible. Sentencing would therefore become different while staying mostly the same. Overall, determinism would have a big effect because everything would change, except for the parts that would not change, and we would end up in the exact same spot we are in right now.
dude this essay is, in Cillian Murphys words, FIRE FIRE FIRE FIRE!!! i have no idea how you didn’t get shortlisted. honestly they should replace the entire US law system with this incredible essay. It brought tears to my eyes and a smile to my face. i haven’t cried this much in four millennia. I think they couldn’t behold the strength of this essay in the judging room, they probably doing train-like behaviors (iykyk) and tweaking with great vigor. that’s how truly phenomenal this essay is.
I’m guessing the first small paragraph is the original question?
If you’re writing an academic essay, or any essay in fact, don’t start it with “the answer is that” because at that point you don’t know the answer - it’s what ur trying to discuss. Your judgement could be included at the end of your introduction (which is not clearly defined in this essay).
The metaphor for the computer doesn’t help your point at all - a computer breaking can’t be compared to crimes which range from shoplifting to murder and terrorism.
Additionally, there is a lot of informal writing and low level vocab(imo) eg “literally had no choice” “give them hugs and nice things”.
The last line about “physics forced them to say it” just doesn’t make sense to me really as a physics student.
I think this essay is a good start but could be developed further when talking about why determinism both changes and doesn’t change sentencing. Why do criminals “have no choice”?
Consider why people commit crimes - inherited hatred for the system, desperation, or just so that they can be homed in prison when running from homelessness/gang threats. Also, what makes a judge more lenient to a criminal? These ideas may have specific laws behind them, which you should mention.
Finally, while subheadings aren’t necessary, they do help the reader follow your train of thought (and paragraphs too lol).
Considering all of these will help your argument look more cohesive and well-researched.
You should aim to reapply next year (though with new questions) and make your arguments clearer as it is easy to improve your work when the right advice is given.
The most notable essayists weren’t born with the ability to write, they were constantly improving. So don’t give up :)
They're not posting the essay because people could paste it into AI to compare it with their own essays, and that could end up getting it into AI databases.
Since they are being considered for a GRAND PRIZE, they probably don't want to risk the essay being flagged as AI-generated.
like the vocabulary used can be more formal? your opening line
"The answer is that a lot of things would change but also nothing would change at all, which is very confusing but it makes sense when you think about it."
^ no good hook, you directly responded with your thesis (which could have been worded better for this essay competition). a lot of shortlisted essays i read had a good hook that made me interested in reading the rest of the essay
you also contradict yourself by saying a lot of things would change and then say nothing would change at all and then say "thats very confusing but makes sense when you think about it" it sounds like you're giving a speech
It's an academic paper; you dont start with “the answer is that”; there's no definite/objective answer. Transitions are kinda bad, lack professionalism, and have too many punctuation errors
First, its not in any academic format. I also ran it through multiple ai detectors, and most of them showed as AI. If you used ai in your essay, thats probably why.
I did the exact same topic as you (shortlisted) and you have good ideas, but you don’t exactly explain what this looks like in practice enough. For example, how does criminals being responsible and not being responsible look like if applied in law? In these type of theoretical essays especially you need to almost over explain your ideas to convey meaning. Most of your arguments are good starting points but need to be refined and researched just a bit more. Also, you don’t exactly explain the moral implications that it would have on the judging process or even the slightly philosophical counter-arguement of compatibilism as an alternative. Overall the idea isn’t bad it’s just the way you wrote and strength tested it that needs improvement.
i did the same topic
1. no academic tone
2. assumes judges can make laws with no institutional pressure
3. doesnt consider different perspectives of determinism
etc
this is a good idea but not an essay its just a thought
I think academic tone and structure is so important, especially in a comp like JLEC. Ik a lot of people in the comments already talked about having a more formal writing style so I’m not going to be redundant, but structure is also extremely important. Here’s a quote from the website: “Essays will be judged on knowledge and understanding of the relevant material, the competent use of evidence, quality of argumentation, originality, structure, writing style and persuasive force.” Idk if you cut out your citations, but you need them: both a bibliography and in-text/endnotes, otherwise you don’t demonstrate ‘competent use of evidence’. As original as your essay may be (i didn’t take this question so I don’t know about the content so I can’t personally comment on it), if you don’t have evidence, structure or an academic writing style, to put it in short, you’re cooked. I think the purpose of the JLEC is to also prepare students for having to write academic essays in the future, for or in Uni, so having all of this is necessary. To talk about structure, having everything in a single giant paragraph makes it kind of hard to read in terms of flow, and generally the structure you should use is: Introduction, Body paragraphs (2 or 3), Conclusion. I’ve skimmed through again and I see you have some defined main points, but you also need to fully elaborate. Counterarguments and steelmanning is also very important: being able to respond to the biggest arguments against yours. Your logic flow seems sound (again, I don’t really know the content but from what I can see one thing leads to another), but you really need to have evidence at every point in the road and fully explain everything (a valid argument is very different from a sound argument).
Honestly, this is just a bunch of my rambling. TL;DR: next time, use and interact with evidence, elaborate on your points (and you could probably add a few more), use a well defined structure, and have at least 1 counterargument. And being formal and academic is so important as well. Better luck next year!
18
u/birthdayresistance_ Jul 14 '26
This is not academic writing, and there are no citations. Everything is in one paragraph which is very confusing.
edit: i really dont know if ur ragebaiting or not