Which groups and organizations helped shape the juvenile justice system in America? -Group 1: New York House of Refuge -Group 2: Children’s Aid Society -Group 3: Illinois Juvenile Court Act -Group 4: Kent v. United States ( -Group 5: Schall v. Martin ( //biotech.law.lsu.edu/cphl/articles/hastings/hastings-4_-2.htm) -Group 6:Appeal of Samuel Winship
-When was this organization founded? (or, When did this court case occur?) -Who was involved? -How did this organization develop over time? (or, What preceding court cases affected the decision of your assigned case?) -What is the significance of your assigned topic in the development of a system of juvenile justice in the United States? Once research is completed, each group should make sure all its members have notes on the information for use in completing the homework assignment. Then, each group will work together to create a poster that will serve as one segment in a composite timeline illustrating the history of the Juvenile Justice System in the United States. Be sure that each poster includes the date in which the organization began or court case occurred.
You are now a juvenile in the system. After going through your stations, answer the questions that corresponds with your case. Each question should be answered in paragraph form with examples as evidence.
Offender #5 / Station #5 Additionally, an offense of driving under the influence will now be on your record. The information will be available to future employers, landlords and educational institutions, as well as count against you if you re-offend. Write a five-paragraph essay about whether you think this information should be available to the public. Does it depend on the crime or on the age of the person that committed the crime? What other things should be taken into consideration? Should the information be sealed automatically, or should the individual actively have to seal the information?
Offender #4 / Station #5
Your character had the benefit of employed, although inattentive, parents. Write a five-paragraph essay on whether or not parents should be held responsible for the actions of their children. Should the state require the parents to pay for the damage a teenager did? Should the parent be guilty of a crime if a child committed a crime due to the parents’ neglect? Should parents have more power to control their children’s actions to make sure they don’t commit any crimes?
Offender #3 / Station #5 In your fact-finding hearing, the judge determines that you had no intent to distribute the drugs found in your possession. You are released. Although the judge’s decision was favorable for you, it could have easily turned the other way. Write a five-paragraph essay on the consequences of juvenile involvement with the justice system. Think about how it could effect your education, your career and your individual rights. Would it affect any of the relationships you currently enjoy?
Offender #2 / Station #5 Because you are 17 years old and have a few previous minor assault offenses on your record and are facing a serious charge, the judge remands the case to superior court. Your case will now proceed as if you were an adult. Please write a five-paragraph essay on whether you think that serious crimes committed by juveniles should be treated as adult crimes or juvenile infractions.
Offender #1 / Station #5 Petty crimes can be fairly trivial. Many teenagers steal small items under peer pressure or as a rite of passage. However, sometimes these small crimes develop into a larger pattern of crime. Write a five-paragraph essay on how you think the justice system should respond to adolescent crime. Do you think a low tolerance for petty crime will prevent a larger pattern of crime in the future, or do you think adolescents are less capable of evaluating consequences and should not be punished for their criminal activity? Do you think an experience in a detention facility is helpful in prohibiting crime, or should the justice system use more counseling or education services? Please ask your teachers if you need further direction.
Make inferences about character motivation and setting through both stage directions and direct lines.
Demonstrate knowledge of the characters by acting/reading aloud Act I.
Standard:
RL.8.3— Analyze how particular lines of dialogue or incidents in a story or drama propel the action, reveal aspects of a character, or provoke a decision.
Key Questions:
What conflicts do you foresee?
Who do you predict is the protagonist? Who do you predict is the antagonist?
Which jurors should we pay close attention to?
If you were the defendant in a murder trial, which juror would you want/not want on your jury? Explain using textual evidence from the pre-readings.
Make note of what we can infer about each character and his or her motivations.
Annotate for evidence that shows justice being served or not served in this scene.
p. 5 – Describe the setting. Why would an author choose to set a courtroom drama in the summer? What does summer heat feel like? What is it maybe foreshadowing about the mood of the play? (uncomfortable, tense, sticky, etc.)
Pause at the middle of p. 6. From these stage directions. What can we infer about the relationships between the jurors at this point? What does the playwright want us to know about the feeling in the room at this point? (They don’t know one another. The mood is awkward. They aren’t interacting with each other at all.)
p. 7 – What can you infer about Juror 3 based on what he just said?” (He is prejudiced or perhaps extreme, already thinks the kid is guilty just because he is a kid, and thinks this case is “obvious.”)
p. 7 – What type of persuasion is the third juror employing? Emotional or rational?
What can we infer about how Juror 2 feels about Juror 3? How can we infer this? (He feels intimidated by him/doesn’t agree. Stage directions say, “looks nervously” and “moves away.”)
Are there examples of justice/injustice in this case so far? (They might mention Juror 3’s prejudice, or they might mention the judge’s instructions.)
What does Juror 10 mean when he says, “It’s those people! I’m telling you they let the kids run wild up there”?
p. 10 – What do you notice about Juror 8?
What is Juror 7’s tone?
WRITING PROMPT: If you were a defendant in a murder trial, would you be satisfied with this group of people as your jury? Use textual evidence from direct lines and stage directions to explain why or why not.
Analyze the conflicts that emerge between the jurors.
Define “reasonable doubt” and determine whether or not there is evidence of the defendant’s guilt/innocence.
Analyze how the playwright propels action in the plot.
Evaluate Juror 8’s persuasion technique based on logic and rational, rather than emotion and gut feeling.
Standard:
RL.8.3 — Analyze how particular lines of dialogue or incidents in a story or drama propel the action, reveal aspects of a character, or provoke a decision.
Key Questions:
1. Based on what you learned about “Reasonable Doubt,” is there any reasonable doubt in this case? Are you convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
2. p. 13 – Pay attention to the pronouns used by Juror 10. Whom is he referring to here when he says “‘em” and “they’re”? What preconceived prejudices does he have? How might this influence his role as a juror? Make sure to use the word “impartial” in your answer.
3. Every juror except the eighth seems to agree that the boy is guilty. What do they believe was the boy’s motive for killing his father?
4. p. 18 – Describe the relationship between Juror 3 and his son. How might this impact his belief about the defendant who is charged with killing his father?
5. p. 18 –Juror 4 says, “Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society” (p. 18). In response, Juror 5 rises and speaks loudly. What does Juror 5 say about his past in this moment?
6. What is Juror 8’s reasoning for voting “Not Guilty"?
7. p. 20 – How is Juror 8 trying to emphasize the kid’s right to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
8. p. 21 – Identify the example of sarcasm on the top of p. 21. What does that reveal about Juror 3’s opinion?
9. On p. 24, Juror 9 tells us that the boy’s friend testified that the defendant did break his knife. Why is this an important testimony?
10. On p. 24, underline one piece of evidence that shows that Juror 3 is thinking with his gut (emotionally), not his brain (rationally).
11. According to the dialogue on pp. 24 and 25, which jurors may be starting to doubt that the defendant is guilty? List all of them.
12. p. 26 – What is Juror 8 proposing? How does this have the potential to move the plot?
13. What impact does Juror 5’s decision have on the plot?
14. According to the information on p. 27, what is the most likely reason Juror 9 told everyone he changed his vote?
15. On p. 27, Juror 3 claims that the reason he is so “excitable” is because he wants to put “a guilty man in the chair where he belongs.” Do you believe that this is Juror 3’s main motivation for his actions, or is there another reason why he is so adamant about punishing the defendant? WRITING PROMPT (choose one):
If you were a member of the jury, would you be convinced at this point of the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt?” Explain using evidence from the text.
On pp. 24 and 25, how is Juror 8’s persuasion technique different than that of Jurors 3 and 10? Make sure to use evidence to support your answer.
3rd Reading: pp. 29-48
Objectives:
Analyze how the playwright uses Juror 8 to propel action in the plot.
Analyze the playwright’s deliberate choices of character actions and words.
Analyze the irony at the end of Act I.
Standard:
RL.8.3 — Analyze how particular lines of dialogue or incidents in a story or drama propel the action, reveal aspects of a character, or provoke a decision.
Key Questions:1. At the top of p. 31, Juror 8 makes an important point. Which of the following best summarizes his point? 2. p. 33 – How does the author develop the plot? 3. Why did Juror 8 want the jurors to consider how long it takes a train to pass a given point? 4. On p. 36, what do the following stage directions revel about Juror 9? “10th Juror: Well, that’s the most fantastic story I’ve ever heard. How can you make up a thing like that? What do you know about it?” “The 9th Juror lowers his head, embarrassed.” 5. On p. 36, Juror 11 says, “Facts may be colored by the personalities who present them.” What is Juror 11 saying about the challenge of trying to find the “truth”? 6. On p. 37, What is Juror 8’s point about the phrase “I’m going to kill you”? Do you agree with him? Why or why not? 7. On p. 37, explain how the author develops the plot. Identify one or two pieces of evidence from at leat two different jurors that support your answer. 8. On p. 37, what is ironic (humorous) about the way Juror 10 says, “He don’t even speak good English.” What is the correct way of saying this? 9. p. 42 – Why does Juror 7 say “You’re sitting here pulling stories outta thin air” to Juror 8? 10. p. 46 – List all the evidence that has been called into question so far by the jurors. 11. p. 47 – Describe what Juror 8 proves through his demonstration with the diagram of the apartment. 12. p. 47 – Use context clues to infer the meaning of “sanctimonious” on p. 47. How do you know? 13. p. 48 - What is ironic about the end of Act I? Why does Rose end the act this way? 14. p. 48 – Identify a specific conflict that occurred in Act I. Who were the jurors involved? What was the conflict? Who do you side with (agree with), and why? 15. As of right now, do you think the defendant is guilty or innocent? You MUST provide evidence from the play to support your answer.
WRITING PROMPT (choose one): 1. Choose one character to focus on for the following questions.
How has the juror you chose affected the plot thus far? In other words, what has he added to the drama?
How do his actions move the plot in a certain way?
2. At the end of Act I, a juror shouts something extremely ironic and unexpected. What does he shout and why is it ironic? Why did Reginald Rose choose to end Act I this way, and what does it prove?
4th Reading: pp. 49-54 Objectives:
Connect the symbolism of the hot weather and the rising tension.
Explain how the stage directions help to create the mood in the jury room.
Analyze the symbolism of each character's actions during Juror 10's monologue.
Standard:
RL.8.3 — Analyze how particular lines of dialogue or incidents in a story or drama propel the action, reveal aspects of a character, or provoke a decision.
Key Questions:
Why is everyone looking at Juror 3? Use evidence from pp. 47 and 48 to support the answer.
How do the stage directions help create the mood in the jury room?
At the opening of Act II, the stage directions tell us there is an awkward silence. Why is it awkward? Why is everyone looking at Juror 3?
On p. 50, Juror 5 describes the heat and the darkness. What does the weather symbolize in Twelve Angry Men?
On the middle of p. 51, Juror 10 says, “Six to six! I’m telling you…” What can we infer about Juror 10 here? What tells you this? Is he driven by logic or emotion? Brain or gut?
At the bottom of p. 51, the stage directions tell us that the setting of the room is changing. Describe how these stage directions help develop the mood. What might this change be foreshadowing about the plot?
What is Reginald Rose telling us about the jurors through the stage directions at the bottom of p. 52? (If students are stuck, ask, “How does the weather mirror the jurors’ feelings and mood in the room?”)
p. 55 – Explain what it means to have a hung jury. Why does Juror 10 want this? What do you think his motivation is for wanting to declare a hung jury?
p. 55 – How seriously do Jurors 7 and 10 take their role as jurors? Support your answer with one or two pieces of evidence.
WRITING PROMPT What does the weather symbolize in the plot? Explain your answer using 1-2 details from the text.
5th Reading: pp. 56-66
Objectives:
Analyze the symbolism of each character's actions during Juror 10's monologue.
Standard:
RL.8.3 — Analyze how particular lines of dialogue or incidents in a story or drama propel the action, reveal aspects of a character, or provoke a decision.
Key Questions:
p. 57 – Why does Juror 8 ask this series of questions to Juror 4?
p. 58 – The foreman says that the psychiatrist told the jury that the boy has strong “homicidal tendencies.” Juror 12 points out that the psychiatrist actually said strong “paranoid tendencies.” Why is this distinction important?
What does it reveal about the foreman that his response to this distinction is “Right. Whatever that is.”
pp. 61–62 – What information does Juror 5 provide that shows a piece of testimony to be false? Explain how Juror 5’s information proves that the evidence is false. Does he persuade through logic or emotion? How effective is he in his persuasion? Why?
On p. 65, Juror 10 reveals his true motives in his monologue. What is his reason for voting “guilty”? Support your answer with evidence from the text. How do the other jurors respond on pages 64 and 65? Explain using details from the text.
WRITING PROMPT Use evidence from the text to answer the following question: What do most of the jurors do to Juror 10 during his monologue on pp. 64–65? Explain what this action symbolizes. (In other words, what is the playwright trying to tell us here?)
6th Reading: pp. 66-End Objectives:
Explain how the stage directions contribute to Rose's message about justice.
Standard:
RL.8.2— Determine a theme or central idea of a text and analyze its development over the course of the text, including its relationship to the characters, setting, and plot; provide an objective summary of the text.
Key Questions:
p. 66 – What does Juror 8 mean when he says, “prejudice obscures truth”?
p. 66 – What does Juror 8 mean when he says, “But we have a reasonable doubt, and this is a safeguard that has enormous value in our system.”?
p. 71 – Juror 4 changes his vote to “not guilty” after the evidence he thought was the strongest is proven to be doubtful. What can we infer about Juror 4 based on this change?
p. 72 – How are the actions of Juror 3 and Juror 8 similar? Think about the beginning and end of the play.
p. 72 – How does the line “It’s not your boy” contribute to the resolution in the play? Make the connection between the goal of objectivity and Juror 3’s personal bias.
WRITING PROMPT:
p. 73 – On the last page of the play, explain what happens in the stage directions. What do Juror 8’s actions reveal about Reginald Rose’s message about the role of a jury? (It’s not personal! The verdict is not personal.)