Blog #9- Julia Hansen- 2/24/2020- Period 2

February 24th, 2020

Julia Hansen 

Period 2 

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: How is prejudice affecting decision making in the jury room?

• Most of the jurors come in with closed mindsets. In their heads they already have made a decision before they even discussed it because of the color of his skin and the lifestyle he lives. 

Reasonable doubt: if there is a possibility that something is not the way you originally assumed, and you can provide some evidence to prove it.

Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is required for conviction of a criminal defendant. A reasonable doubt exists when a factfinder cannot say with moral certainty that a person is guilty or a particular fact exists. It must be more than an imaginary doubt, and it is often defined judicially as such doubt as would cause a reasonable person to hesitate before acting in a matter of importance. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/reasonable%20doubt

Reasonable Doubt: Not being sure of a criminal defendant's guilt to a moral certainty. 

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. If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

Hung Jury: A jury that cannot reach a unanimous verdict.

Pg. 44-52 read aloud.

Discussion: What causes disparity when defining reasonable?

Many different definitions of reasonable.

Reflection: 

Today we continued to read 12 Angry Men. Before we read aloud, we learned about reasonable doubt and a hung jury. This broadened our horizon of the judicial system before we continued reading about the trial. We also discussed how prejudice affected the juror’s decision making which adds deeper meaning to what we read. What we learned about the courtroom and about biases will help us as we continue reading

Blog #9 - Jessica Gart - Period 9 - 2/24/2020

Jessica Gart

Period 9

Sophomores 2020

2/24/2020

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: 

Reviewing Act II of Twelve Angry Men 

(this was a VERBAL activity but we mainly recalled and discussed what occured in Act II)

Lesson Recall:

How is prejudice affecting decision-making in the jury room?

~the various backgrounds of all the jurors causes them to view the defendant in different lights/through different perspectives

~prejudice negatively affects the decisions of the jurors because they can be racist or biased when viewing the defendant (ex. Juror 10)

~prejudice positively affects the decisions of the jurors because some of them try harder to not view the case in a biased light (ex. Juror 8/9)

Asses and Review:

Using your knowledge of diction, based on or previous lesson, with your partner, create a definition that you believe accurately depicts the term “reasonable doubt”.

My/Sam’s definition:

Reasonable doubt→ the instance in which there is reason to believe someone is not guilty

Other definitions that were shared out:

“Being 100% convinced that something is the way it is.”

“When there is the slightest piece of information which gives doubt to the case.”

Actual Definition:

Reasonable doubt→ not being sure of a criminal defendant’s guilt to a moral certainty.

**Reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution**

**A “hung jury” is a jury that cannot reach a unanimous verdict**

Today we read pages 44-52 in Twelve Angry Men. This is what mainly occurred:

~a re-vote took place and the jury was split (6 people voted guilty and 6 people voted not guilty)

~the people who changed their votes mainly did so because they had reasonable doubt

~Juror 8 continued to be a hostile character, loudly and rudely voicing his opinion

~Juror 8 said that nothing can convince him to change his vote

~the jury voted on whether they believe they are a hung jury or not (at first the results were split 6 to 6, but then Juror 4 changed his vote to ‘not a hung jury’ because he wanted to continue discussing murder)

~Juror 4 continued to try to understand why Juror 8 (and the others) believe the boy is not guilty

~the jurors recreated the murder scene in more detail (this recreation proved that the murder, in fact, was possible)

~some jurors started swaying more towards guilty, but some started to doubt the situation further

Group Discussion:

What causes disparity when defining “reasonable”?

~there are different point of views on how ‘reasonable’ can be defined depending on the person

~there is no SET definition for ‘reasonable’ so it is left to be interpreted by every individual

Reflection:

In today’s class we greatly discussed the term ‘reasonable doubt’ and how it applies to the play we are reading. The full definition of reasonable doubt is “when a factor cannot say with moral certainty that a person is guilty or a particular fact exists”. This definition is important for us to know because it is showing up in our current book, Twelve Angry Men. In particular, Juror 8, a juror in the book, is establishing some reasonable doubt. There is a possibility that one of the witnesses, the old man, may not be giving an accurate testimony about the defendant. This establishes reasonable doubt and may be the reason for why the defendant could be considered ‘not guilty’. Therefore, this definition is important because otherwise we would not make the connection as to why some of the jurors feel that the boy should no longer be considered guilty. Another thing we reviewed in class today was the definition of a ‘hung jury’. This vocabulary is important because it was mentioned in the reading today. The jurors may have a hung jury, and without knowing the definition of this phrase we would not understand what was happening. We can use both of these terms to aid us in the future. For example, in other books consisting of a law basis, we will understand what all the terms mean. On top of this, when we are older and need to go serve as jurors ourselves at jury duty, we will be familiar with the important terms associated with this responsibility.

Additional Resources:

In-depth definition of Reasonable Doubt:

https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reasonable-doubt.html

In-depth definition of Jury Duty:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hung-jury/

Definitions of other important law terms:

https://www.uscourts.gov/glossary

Blog #9 - Jay Jiang - Period 1 - 2/24/2020

February 24/2020

Jay Jiang

Period 1 Reading

Aim: How can we use the poem, “This is Just to Say” by William Carlos Williams as inspiration for own poems? 

Do Now: Describe a time when you or someone you know did something that was “technically wrong” and you should have felt sorry for it but you didn’t?

For our do now, we wrote about situations in which we should have apologized to the other party but we didn’t. When it was time to share, none of us gained the courage to share but luckily Ms.Peterson was there and saved us by sharing her story about how she slapped her cousin but still refused to apologize to him. After the do now, we spirit read the poem “This is Just to Say” by William Carlos Williams.

Class Notes

This Is Just To Say

BY WILLIAM CARLOS WILLIAMS

I have eaten

the plums

that were in

the icebox

and which

you were probably

saving

for breakfast

Forgive me

they were delicious

so sweet

and so cold

This is a free verse poem. Although it doesn’t use rhymes, it is still able to be constructed into a poem. This poem was written by William to his wife which he hung on the refrigerator. This builds on to the do now since William did something bad but is also not that sorry about it as he goes on to describe how the plums were delicious, sweet and cold. We continued reading and read another short poem in which the author did some things that he should have apologized for and even though he wrote he was sorry, he doesn’t mean it.

After this we learned about imagery in poems and this is the root of imagination. 

• … Image is the root word of imagination. It’s from Latin imago, “picture,” how you see things. Images carry feelings.  Saying, “I’m angry,” or “I’m sad,” has little impact. Creating images, I can make you feel how I feel.
• Writing poems using images can create an experience allowing others to feel what we feel. 
• Perhaps more important, poems can put us in touch with our own often buried or unexpected feelings.

After we were exposed to the meaning of imagery, we experienced it ourselves by reading short poems that contained imagery in it. Each poem dramatizes imagery and uses it to create a feeling whether it was the landscape creating hopelessness or natural images such as the ocean to create joyfulness. 

We then moved on to a longer poem called “Fast Break” by Edward Hirsch and we had to annotate it. The poem talks about a basketball with the author scrambling to jot down every single detail. It builds suspense and we can imagine ourselves on the court as we see every detail and what every single person. After spirit reading the poem and annotating it, we either worked with our groups or with a partner to finish the TWIST Analysis.

T - Tone

W - Word Choice

I - Imagery

S - Style

T - Theme

I worked with my partner and discussed with him as we pulled evidence from the poem and jotted it down to find the theme.

T - The author wrote it as  suspenseful since it was very fast as the author describes everything

W - The word choice used comes from someone who has education and is very descriptive about everything

I - The author uses a lot of description relating to sight as he describes what he sees.

S - The author writes this poem with thought as he scrambles to jot down all the interesting facts so he has writes with passion as we can tell. People who don’t write with passion tend to write things that are more boring.

T - Teamwork makes the dream work

An imperative statement was also added to the analysis where we wrote something that interprets this poem. My partner and I wrote “With the support of your team, anything is possible.”

Reflection

In today’s class, I learned about how imagery impacts a poem and how it turns something that is boring into something packed with energy. For example, instead of writing “Today is raining”, you can write “The clouds turned dark as thunder filled the air. Out of nowhere, people began to run, going back home for shelter. A loud BOOM cracks the sky as rain falls down from the sky”. Although both these sentences are talking about the same concept, rain, the 2nd one packs a more powerful punch as the readers now have something to base their imagination on. I learned it because it helps the readers imagine it better and allows for them to know exactly what you were thinking while you were writing. For “Today is raining”, there is an infinite amount of scenarios that you can come up with, but if you add imagery, you know exactly what happened. I can use what I learned when I am writing my own poem by adding imagery to make my poem not sound too vague. If I just fill the page with words, it would most likely make the reader bored but with action there, it is more meaningful and makes a more lasting impact.

Blog #9- Mila Karimov- Period 3- 02/24/2020

Mila Karimov Blog 

Mrs. Peterson

02.24.2020

Monday

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: Reviewing Act II of Twelve Angry Men 

LESSON RECALL: How is prejudice affecting decision- making in the jury room? 

The discussion started out with the students explaining about the Juror’s and their sympathy for the boy. Olivia used evidence to support her claim that Juror 8 was helping the child. There were associations made with their own family, their own children. There was personal prejudice involved, as Juror 3 said that they wanted to “pull the switch”. Different circumstances allow for people to grow up differently, and have different biases and their own opinions. Further, the students were able to share their opinions and it was really interesting to listen to, because each person had their own background and separate ideas. Of course, a lot of people shared similar issues and agreed a lot, but listening to the arguments really opened my mind to the possibilities! 

ASSESS AND REVIEW: Using your knowledge of diction, based on or precious lesson, with your partner, create a definition that you believe accurately depicts the term “reasonable doubt”. 

• Something doesn’t add up and you start to question it. There is evidence that shows that something doesn’t work. They shouldn’t just say that something is the way it is. Standard of proof used in criminal trials. It is required in criminal proceedings under the Fifth Amendment. If there is reasonable doubt, then that means that the person is not guilty. 
• I feel as if reasonable doubt truly is reasonable, because there have been so many instances of people being convicted for a crime that they weren’t responsible for, and their lives have been ruined. If there is even a morsel of information that can prove someone’s innocence, it must be used to help the person. 

Nearpod quiz 

• What is a hung jury? 
• It is a jury that cannot reach a unanimous verdict 

Read Aloud

• It was very dramatic and David was rolling around on the floor and yelling
• During the read aloud, the students were able to share their thoughts and through their readings, we could better understand the characters and the emotions they experienced. 

WHOLE GROUP DISCUSSION

• What causes disparity when defining “reasonable”
• Different people have different opinions, and it pertains to every single individual. Disparity means different. The environment affects the person and the personality or them. It may cause biases and different opinions. When a jury comes together, you get a jury of your “peers”. When people come from different backgrounds and ethics, than a different person, there are bound to be some disagreements on some topics. Reasonable can mean big or small, but just enough to prove a point. 
• Imagine if a poor person from a not modest upbringing, and the rest of the jury was rich and had money. Lisa made a very good point that there would be a bias if the majority was poor, as it would have created a scene of sympathy for the men. It would create a negative connotation for the people that had a modest or lower class upbringing. 

CLUSTER WORK

TEAM 1	What diction does juror 8 use that creates reasonable doubt	He presents clear and focal points, he’s very open to other opinions and agrees when somebody makes a clear point
TEAM 2	What is the tone of juror 3 as the discussion on reasonable doubt ensues	He sticks to his point and refuses to change his mindset or his way of thinking
TEAM 3	Is the jurors reeenactment of the murder scene reasonable	Not really, because there might have been other factors that affected the experiment
TEAM 4	What does the decision in the jury room demonstrate to the reader	It shows that the jurors are also people, and that they are capable of changing their minds for helping others
TEAM 5	Whis is there friction between 8 and 3	They are constantly fighting and they have such different opinions that they constantly have friction and they’re fighting.

REFLECTION- The class today was really informative, as we were able to learn and build off of each other’s responses, which I thought was very positive and gave us all different opinions and ideas. I learned what a hung jury was, and got to see it incorporated in not only the book, but also the classroom. I really liked the way that Ms. Peterson was able to allow each of us have a chance to speak and build on each other. I also learned what reasonable doubt was in the courtroom, which I believe will be very helpful in other classes and the real world as well, so that was good. I feel as if this discussion was really similar to the situation going in the world, as there are just so many issues in the courtroom. People serve sentences that aren’t correct, just because of biases in the jury room that stem from personal experiences and backgrounds. 

Blog #8 - Fatin Ishteaaque - 02/14/2020 - Period 3

Fatin Ishteaaque 02/14/2020 Period 3 Blog #N/A

Aim: How does prejudice affect the perspectives of the jurors?

Do Now: What can you tell us about these two people?

We had a certain similarity between the majority of our responses referred to the man on the left as kind, compassionate, organized, or confident. While the man on the right was described as, untrustworthy, unkept, and unorganized. Pretty much, our responses consisted of our class assuming That the man on the right would not be the safest around, going as far as to call him a pedofile or a murderer. 

All in all, the class realized how much one can assume about a person from simply their looks. We make assumptions without knowing either of the two, which is known as prejudice, the topic of February 14th’s lesson. 

In the case that someone might not know what exactly prejudice is, I suggest the video below.

https://youtu.be/7P0iP2Zm6a4

But coming with prejudice is inequality, a topic that was held very strongly in our class, and irradiates very mixed feelings that vary in an almost chaotic way. Now, how does prejudice impact the lives of people.

For a few days now, our class has read the book, or play, “12 Angry Men”, about a jury deciding the verdict of a murder case. The majority of the jurors feel the defendant is guilty, and as time goes on we learn that they only believe so due to the assumptions, caused by the boys roots.

Some say that such assumptions or prejudice are just ways to keep you safe, and allow you to make the correct decisions. However, the majority of the class decided that prejudice was simply an unfair form of grouping. Although my opinion does not represent that of the class, and nor should any one person’s, but I personally believe that a little bit of prejudice, and a little bit of assuming is indeed and effective way at making sure one can stay safe, even going as far as to say that it can be instinctual.  

In our actual acting of the play, we reach a point where the jurors are beginning to see how their prejudice and assumptions were affecting their decisions. The 11 - 1 vote of guilty, then becomes 9 - 3 after Juror eight makes a strong claim as to how some testimonies cannot be trusted. 

And in case you thought something like: “maybe the jurors genuinely did think the boy was guilty” then I am sorry to let you know that is most likely not the case. Some of the jurors refer to the defendant as a group, saying line such as: “you cannot trust them” which is a form of prejudice in grouping. 

The great majority, if not then all, of our class agrees that the Jurors, had originally just wanted to leave the room and go about their lives fast, so they then gave into the assumptions they were making, and labelled him as guilty. Personally, I agree and would also add that since Juror Eight seemed like he would keep them there for a long time anyways, they thought it through and realized that, they should indeed take more time to think about it. 

We ended on the note of Juror Eight, proving that a testimony cannot be trusted with full extent. 

Reflection:

After spending about a week or two talking about equality, and hinting at topics like racism and sexism, it’s to say that we only expected a lesson about prejudice at some point, and once we started reading that book, it all came together. If anyone one our class didn’t get the heavy impact prejudice makes on our decision making, then they do now. However, we also ended off learning that all it takes to make people rethink their prejudice and assumptions, is one person with a loud enough voice and some good reasoning.

Blog #7 - Jason Cheung - Period 7 - 2/14/20

Feb 14, 2020

Jason Cheung, Period 7

Aim: How does prejudice affect the perspective of the jurors?

Do Now: What can you tell us about these two people?

    There were multiple responses that all agreed on the same consensus: the man on the left appears as a happy old man that is approachable while the man on the right appears to be creepy due to his appearance. 

Notes

Prejudice- Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

Read Aloud: Act 2 (Pages 32-43)

Reading Focus: While reading, focus on the diction and tone. Take notes that pertain specifically to prejudice

• Page 33-34: Juror 9 states that the old man is lying as he sees him as an old man who looks as he has lived all his life without feeling significant and wanted to finally be recognized.  
• Page 36: when Juror 8  stated that the boy was much too bright to scream out “I will kill you”, Juror 10 disagreed with him stating that he was not bright and called the boy an “ignorant slob” and couldn’t speak proper English.
• Page 37-38: The Jurors agreed that the old man must have not been too sure about the time as he was old

Group Work:

How does prejudice affect our perspectives?

Usually, prejudice would be an unjustified or irrational attitude towards an individual or a certain group based solely the individual’s unreasonable thoughts on the person’s ethnic, social, racial, or religious group. If an individual were to view a certain group or person as hazardous based on their general characterization of them, then they categorize anyone who is just like them as the same thing. In the story, the boy who was put into the trial had a background of crimes, reckless behavior, lived in a slum and did not speak proper English. Based on all this information, the jurors assumed that he was the one who orchestrated the murder as they categorized him as someone who would have walked the path of murder. Because of this categorization, they simply absorbed all the information as true and that there was no flaw in what the witnesses had stated and tried to disagree with any counterclaim against the witnesses.

What role does bias play in our decision-making

A person’s bias would play a huge factor in our decision-making. If someone looked like a creepy man, similarly to the one in the do now, then you would assume that he is most likely a pedophile. Our biased opinion would prevent us from accepting true information, resulting in us only believing what we think is true based on their stereotypes.

Summary:

Today I learned that prejudice and bias plays a large role in our perspective and opinion of a certain topic. Prejudice is an unjustified or irrational attitude towards an individual or a certain group based solely the individual’s unreasonable thoughts on the person’s ethnic, social, racial, or religious group. This means that stereotypes that a person would give a certain ethnic, social, or racial group would result in a form of irrational attitude or unjustified opinions about them. If someone views a certain group negatively, then they would make biased opinions about them rather than justified opinions that are backed up with actual proof. 

I learned this because it is in human nature that we would stereotype everyone based on their race, gender, appearance, and action. The stereotypes that we use to label these groups would alter the way we view them; for example, if someone was a young boy who is always studying and reading, then we would label them as a nerd and would characterize them as not athletic and spends all their free time reading. This would help us become aware that our stereotypes are not always correct, a person whom we may think is reckless could be someone kind.

If there is ever a time where I am called to be a jury, I will know that I should not base my opinions on my bias on that person’s race