Commonly Confused

Writing effectively is an essential part of succeeding in law school and beyond. You want to make sure your words are clear, concise and, most importantly, correct. Below are some terms that are commonly misused or confused in legal papers.

1. Ensure v. Assure v. Insure – These three words sound similar and are all verbs generally meaning “to make sure”. However, they are not interchangeable. Ensure is something done to guarantee an event or condition. Assure is an act done to a living being to relieve doubt. Insure has to do with limiting financial liability. 
2. Council v. Counsel – You definitely do not want to confuse these when meeting with clients. Counsel refers to advice given to someone, or a lawyer who represents someone in a court of law. Council is a group of people who are chosen to make rules, laws, or decisions. 
3. Affect v. Effect – These two are commonly used improperly. Affect is a verb meaning to influence. Effect is a noun meaning result.
4. Precedent v. Precedence – You will see the importance of these in your writing and case briefing! Precedent refers to a case that has come before the case in which a lawyer is currently dealing. (The plural is precedents.) Precedence relates to ranking in order of importance or urgency.
5. Whether v. Whether or Not – If you’ve had Dean Sullivan, you already know there’s a difference. Whether expresses some doubt. On its own, the word implies the “or not”, making it redundant to add it. In addition, leaving the “or not” off, makes it easier to answer a legal issue with a yes or no answer!

Are there other words or phrases you need clarified? Leave them in the comments below. 

P.S. There is never a wrong time to reach out for writing help. If you don’t know who to contact, please e-mail me (taylor.mace@msl.edu) and I can connect you to the best person.

- Taylor Mace

Scientific Sentence Reform

Back in 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that it was impermissible under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to execute a juvenile offender under the age of 18 when they committed a capital crime. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). In 2021, the Washington Supreme Court considered whether the constitutional requirement that prohibits mandatory life without parole sentences for defendants under 18 extends to those defendants aged 18-21. In re Pers. Restraint of Monschke, 197 Wash.2d 305, 482 P.3d 276 (2021). Though the court re-examined the penalty of youthful offenders, sixteen years has allowed science to have a say in the decision.

Neuroscience played a large role in determining the court’s decision. Throughout the majority opinion, concurrence, and dissent, the word “brain” was used nearly 2 dozen times and the words “neuroscience” or “neurological” 13 times. Neuroscientists now know that the differences between juveniles and adults, as recognized in Roper, are present in those over 18. These differences can extend to nearly 20 years of age, leaving the brain undeveloped until this time. 

    No two offenders are the same, however. Think of your friends or siblings. Each person matured at their own pace, without a reasonable level of predictability. There is a variability in individual attributes of youthfulness that should grant the court discretion as to when these youthful qualities should apply. No meaningful neurological bright line exists between the age of 17 and 20, meaning there is no clear-cut answer. Therefore, courts should have discretion to consider the mitigating qualities of youth into account when sentencing defendants within this age range.

    The court held that just as courts must exercise discretion before sentencing a 17 year old to die in prison, so must they exercise the same discretion when sentencing an 18, 19, or 20 year old. The court reasoned that “biological and psychological development continues into the early twenties, well beyond the age of majority”. This conclusion makes mandatory life without parole sentences unconstitutional for offenders younger than 21. 

        Justice Owens, dissenting, presents an argument that should be given thought, too. She reasons that redrawing the lines of a juvenile based on brain development evidence can leave room for, perhaps, too much discretion. It begs the question of when a person should be held fully accountable as an adult.

Where do you believe the line should be drawn? What else should the courts examine before drawing that line?

In re Pers. Restraint of Monschke, 197 Wash.2d 305, 482 P.3d 276 (2021).
Roper v. Simmons, 543 US 551 (2005).

-Taylor Mace

Welcome Back!

Welcome back to school AND to the Massachusetts School of Law Blog. My name is Taylor Mace, and I am a 3L student who will be taking over the blog as Editor in Chief. This will be a platform where students, staff, and faculty can connect and read about issues related to our legal education. I plan to prepare a new post each week with topics spanning study tips, current events, and comments on new cases or updates in the legal field. 

Have something to say? Voice your opinion in the comment section!

Have something to write? E-mail your proposed blog post to taylor.mace@msl.edu and you may be featured on the blog!

I look forward to sharing these posts with you. Have a great semester and talk to you soon!

-Taylor