Cathy Luy

Oliver St. John

FIQWS 10103

23 October 2019

Generally, there are two forms of informative writing: popular and scholar. Although the topics of popular and scholarly articles could be the same, there are many similarities and differences between the two. The two articles are intended for two different discourse communities. Magazine articles are usually written so the readers can be exposed to the topic in a quick article read while scholar articles provide an in-depth analysis of the topic for readers to completely understand the topic. 

The two articles “Neuroscience and Criminal Law: Have We Been Getting It Wrong for Centuries and Where Do We Go from Here?”, a Fordham paper by Elizabeth Bennett and “The brain, the criminal and the courts”, a Knowable Magazine article by Eryn Brown, both discuss the use of neuroscience in criminal law and what the future of neurolaw could be like. However, one is written as part of the symposium “Criminal Behavior and the Brain: When Law and Neuroscience Collide”, and the other is for a science-based magazine. The authors “[recognize] the rhetorical situation of [their] action and choosing to act in a manner that would result in the outcome [they] desired”, they write and format their articles in a specific way for their intended audience (Dirk 253).

Eryn Brown introduces her topic by providing one of the earliest court cases that involved brain scans: the John W. Hinckley case where he was found not guilty because of insanity. By doing this, Brown gives a direct example for the readers of how neuroscience can affect criminal law in a slight bias way. By starting her article with a court case that does not really show neuroscience’s effect on criminal law in a positive way, Brown is pursuing her audience that neuroscience is unfit for the courtroom. On the other hand, Elizabeth Bennett introduced her topic by questioning it and giving background history and development on neuroscience. In doing this, Bennett allows her readers to think about the topic and form their own opinion on it before showing what her views on it are; she introduces the topic of neuroscience in criminal law unbiasedly.

Layout wise, one similarity is that both articles are sectioned off with subtitles. However, even with the way they section off their articles are different, which shows that it is intended for two different discourse communities. Brown’s article is sectioned off into four main parts, the introduction which brings up the Hinckley case and the advancements in neuroscience, the increase in criminal cases that involve neuroscience, the science behind it, and the future of neurolaw. The Fordham paper, however, contains multiple subtitles, with subparts within the subtitles. Bennett sectioned off her article so that it is not only sectioned off by the different topics discussed but also by different aspects of that topic. This shows how much more detail is included in the Fordham paper compared to the Knowable Magazine article.

In spite of the fact that there are similarities in both articles layout, there are also differences. The Fordham paper lists the sources at the end of each page while the Knowable Magazine article includes hyperlinks throughout the article. This shows that although both articles reference other scholarly texts; the Fordham paper includes more sources compared to the Knowable Magazine article. The Fordham paper is longer because there is more information present compared to the magazine article. The Fordham paper provides more in-depth details about the topic while the magazine article provides basic information so that the audience can understand the topic. With magazine articles, the publisher wants the audience to easily gather pieces of information and can easily access the information mentioned so that if the reader wants to conduct further research on the topic, they would be able to. 

Even though the Knowable Magazine releases articles that are said to be researched, reported, edited, copy-edited and fact-checked, it is still not as reliable as the Fordham paper. Eryn Brown graduated from Harvard University with a degree in history and literature; she has no credible knowledge on the topic of neuroscience or criminal law. Elizabeth Bennett, on the other hand, included various citations in the footnote of each page, having “a long conversation with many other authors of other sources” (Carabelli). Even if Bennett doesn’t fully understand neuroscience and its effects on criminal law, she converses with people who do, people whose careers are based on studying neuroscience and the criminal law system.

Another notable difference in the layout of the articles is that Brown’s article, similar to other articles posted on the Knowable Magazine website, includes visually appealing aspects that the readers would be drawn to. For example, right when the article is opened, there is an image above the title that in some way relates to the topic. In addition, Brown includes graphs and pictures throughout her article. This makes it so that the readers could have a better understanding of the information the author is proving. The layout to most of the Knowable Magazine articles is extremely similar. In Bennett’s article, however, there are no pictures, graphs, or captivating tactics being used, it is solely text. This shows that the Fordham paper, similar to other articles that are a part of the symposium, is extremely detailed sp graphs and pictures are not needed in order for the reader to understand the information. The Fordham article, like many other scholarly articles, is intended for an audience that can comprehend dense texts and for readers who are actually interested in the topic and want to learn more about it. 

Comparing a popular and scholarly article that is on the same topic, neuroscience in criminal law, there are many similarities and differences between the two. Overall the information provided is relatively the same. However, the scholarly article, the Fordham paper, goes into more specific detail about each aspect of the topic, while the popular article, the Knowable Magazine article, provides the basic information needed for the audience to understand what is being discussed. In addition, the way both articles are formatted indicates the difference in the audience it is intended for. The Knowable Magazine article includes images and graphs to help convey the information. The Fordham paper, on the other hand, is formatted in a more sophisticated way, where there are no images present and is solely text. 

Popular and scholarly articles are intended for two different discourse communities. Magazine articles are usually written so the readers can be exposed to the topic in a quick article read while scholar articles provide an in-depth analysis of the topic.