The following 9 Anchor Papers represent a range of score points and are used in conjunction with the rubrics to assess student responses.

Score for Anchor Paper #1: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: This response is related to the question and shows only minimal knowledge. A fragment of a basic idea (the accused may get a lighter sentence) is presented, but the idea is skeletal and incomplete.

Score for Anchor Paper #2: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: This response is related to the question and shows only minimal knowledge. Fragments of basic ideas are provided (the defendant gets a milder punishment; the prosecutor wins the case), but these ideas are general and incomplete.

Score for Anchor Paper #3: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of the benefits of plea bargaining. Basic ideas are presented (the prosecutor will not lose money and time on a long trial; the accused gets off with a lighter sentence).

Score for Anchor Paper #4: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of the benefits of plea bargaining. Basic ideas are provided (the accused will have less time to serve; the prosecuting side got the person accused to admit to the crime to win the case).

Score for Anchor Paper #5: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows knowledge of the benefits of plea bargaining. Basic ideas (the prosecutor doesn't have to waste time on the case; the defense doesn't have to serve as large of a sentence) are provided with a little support (they don't have to get as much evidence; they also don't have to attempt to beat the odds of proving a guilty person innocent).

Score for Anchor Paper #6: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of the benefits of plea bargaining. Accurate concepts are supported (it can make the court process much shorter; less government money may have to be spent on the case). Appropriate application of cause-and-effect reasoning (if the accused spends less time in jail that is less money the government would need to spend on him/her) and analysis and evaluation (reduced charges without risking a harsher sentence or the embarrassment of a trial) show some evidence of higher order thinking skills.

Score for Anchor Paper #7: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of the benefits of plea bargaining. Concepts are accurate and supported (his years in jail would be lowered; the prosecutor is winning the case and can say justice was done). Some evidence of higher order thinking skills is provided through appropriate application of analysis (if he is in danger of the death penalty maybe they will lower his punishment to life in prison; the prosecutor may run for political office because he has served the public; if the accused didn't commit a crime then he is pleading guilty to something he did not do).

Score for Anchor Paper #8: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of the benefits of plea bargaining. Concepts are accurate and well supported (the prosecutor makes sure the defendant is punished and gets to claim a win; the defendant gets a lesser offense listed on his criminal record and avoids the risk of getting harsher punishment from a judge or jury; plea bargaining saves time and money for all). Powerful evidence of higher order thinking skills is demonstrated by extensive and integrated application of analysis and evaluation (lots of wins help their careers; there could be social costs; some people may have less respect for laws; public safety may be less), cause-and-effect reasoning (if he's paying his own lawyer he should save some money; if criminals expect light punishment they may continue to commit crimes; shorter sentences mean earlier releases and more criminals out in society), effective use of example (Rudy Guiliani used to be a prosecutor), and weighing competing interests (it seems the convenience and benefits outweigh these factors).

Score for Anchor Paper #9: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response shows understanding of the benefits of plea bargaining. Accurate concepts (the accused gets a lighter sentence; the prosecution gets a guilty verdict) are well supported. Powerful evidence of higher order thinking skills is demonstrated through insightful and extensive application of analysis and evaluation (prosecution teams with district attorneys who work for the government have a responsibility to taxpayers to convict felons; the defense attorney is ethically bound to defend their client at whatever measure; money is saved on both sides and trials are expedited), cause-and-effect reasoning (the prosecution supports his or her repute by obtaining a guilty verdict), and effective use of relevant example (Robert Hansen who was charged with a capital offense yet did not receive capital punishment in exchange for a guilty plea).

Additional Scored Student Responses