Monday, February 24, 2020
2/24/20
Mindy Chin
Blog #8
Period 7 Sophomores 2020
Aim: By analyzing the tone and diction of the dialogue, how can we assess the effect of “reasonable doubt” in the jury room?
Do Now: (Pair Share) Reviewing Act II of Twelve Angry Men
Lesson Recall: How is prejudice affecting decision-making in the jury room? Cite evidence for your assertion!
- Prejudice impels us to pose preconceived notions of the world we live in. In one particular situation, juror 8's prejudice clouds his judgement and meddles his mind of true facts. Thereby, the perspectives of jurors are influenced by the subtle biases of past and present experiences.
Example: Jury 3 had a bad experience with his son, making the defendant believe the murderer
killed his son
- Even though we might not understand how our experiences shape our perspectives, subliminally they affect our perceptions without us knowing.
Example: We can compare this to Ms. Peterson’s foster daughter: → growing up in Mossy Park (slums, low income neighborhoods), she was conditioned to think fireworks were gunshots → defines the prejudices we have when opportunities are concerned
- Juries are supposed to be diversified, composed of different races
If we put people against the jury of our peers, or people from low socio-economic backgrounds against the rich, we recognize that our perceptions are shaped by the experiences we’ve had in the past
“Slumboy - race other than Caucasian”
Reasonable Doubt:
- Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This is typically used in criminal proceedings under the due process clause of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
“If there is a reasonable doubt I don’t see it” (Juror 4, 47).
“Hung Jury”
- A jury that cannot meet a unanimous vote: even when the trial is over, the jury will continue to debate outside the court; when no verdict is established, another trial is created
“I tell you what, maybe we are a hung jury. It happens sometimes” (Juror 12, 47).
We then proceeded to read Act 3 (Pages 44-52)
What causes disparity when defining “reasonable”?
The term reasonable is especially subjective - one person’s idea of reasonable is different from another person’s idea of reasonable (similar to our discussion of equality) When describing the idea of being “reasonable”, a lot of prejudices come into account, making it hard to find a common ground. It is a vaguely defined word, and up to each and everyone’s interpretation.
Cluster Work:
Team 2: What is the tone of Juror 3 as the discussion on reasonable doubt ensues?
-Reluctant, uncompromising, extremely opinionated → he is undoubtedly intolerant of any opinion other than his own (stubborn)
→ Juror 3 is last to be convinced and only changes his mind once he realizes he is only projecting his feelings
about his own son onto the defendant
Reflection:
One important thing I learned today was jury terminology and its application to Twelve Angry Men. Two specific phrases: “reasonable doubt”, which is the legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction and “hung jury”, which is when a jury cannot meet a unanimous vote, stood out to me as jargon applicable to the setting of the book. I learned these terms so I could better assimilate with these ideas when they were mentioned in the text. Without having a pre-discussion, for instance, I would have never understood when Juror 12 introduced the idea of a“hung jury”, as noted “I tell you what, maybe we are a hung jury. It happens sometimes” (Juror 12, 47). I was also enlightened that the experiences that we have had as humans, both past and present, shape our perceptions today, subliminally and without our control. One particular example would be juror 3, who is obstinate about changing his verdict until he realizes that he is only projecting his feelings about his son onto the defendant.
By applying the vernacular I learned in class to the book, I can better understand the the holistic end of the book and pick out specific nuances of each juror. Thereby, I can more effectively analyze the personalities of each character and why that character may have that particular viewpoint. In the real world, I will try to see the whole picture instead of honing in on one perspective, as my interpretation is biased and shaped by past experiences.
Additional Resources:
No comments:
Post a Comment