Honors Law & Order, Spring 2011
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Web Blog Post #2
Chapter 4:
· Notorious trials are fantasies, and a mechanism to repress cultural anxiety. This cultural anxiety includes moral anxiety, epistemological anxiety, and socioeconomic anxiety.
· All notorious trials carry hidden social costs, and every notorious trial denies factual reality, results in a cultural debt that must be paid. This debt is paid must be paid, and comes back to haunt use through future notorious trials.
· Notorious trials can be a catalyst for social and cultural change, but rarely is this opportunity taken advantage of. In most occasions, the social or cultural issue is not addressed, and therefore, must come back to haunt us in the future. The use of “No society, no individual, can be at peace with himself if his past is repressed is dishonest” in regards to the Nazi Holocaust, was very persuasive (Page 77).
· Notorious cases serve as social barometers of their time.
Chapter 5:
· By nature, court cases are messy. Lawyers must make the decision of whether they want to portray a case as neat and whether or not to leave out details. The details of the case are change its meaning. The case of Randall Dale Adams is an example of this point.
· The modernist’s mindset for certainty and closure provide reasoning behind a lawyer’s urge to make a case neat.
· Due to the fact that the verdict of a case can result in grave consequences to the individual convicted, it is important that the judge and jurors make the correct decision.
· Some lawyers use techniques to undermine the rationality of an argument by leaving out pertinent details or bringing the focus away from an argument. They may do this to confuse jurors.
Chapter 6:
· Culture teaches individuals how to perceive, speak, think, and feel. It defines the world around us, giving us knowledge to base opinions off of.
· The manner in which the media manipulates and proposes facts spark the attention of the public, not necessarily the fact itself.
· There is a close relationship between popular culture and public opinion. An individuals perception of personal and social reality may be manipulated through mass media and the images it presents. Television is the main medium for this manipulation.
· Television viewers are attracted to programs that provide entertainment while giving quick gratification through intellectual relaxation, emotional excitement, and escapism. (Page 143) The media takes advantage of this resulting in the manipulation of individual’s social and cultural reality.
When Law Goes POP, Chapters 4,5,6
In chapter five “The Postmodern Challenge”, Sherwin examines the “antidocumentary” The Thin Blue Line, and how it affected the case of the murder of Robert Wood. In the beginning of the chapter Sherwin notes, “People prefer stories neat. Recognizable characters, familiar motives, and recurring scenarios of conflict and resolution,” and these are the best ways to tell a story so it can be easily understood. But, what tends to happen when stories are neat is that things are sometimes left out. Stories are inherently messy, but by leaving out details we can present stories in a more organized fashion. After Adams was charged with the murder of Robert Wood and sentenced to death by the state of Texas, Errol Morris made The Thin Blue Line. In this, there are two conflicting storylines, which result in a movie that completely contradicts the entire case. It even led to a reexamination of the case. Sherwin tells us that “the rationalist view…has taught us to discard rhetoric as mere window dressing, that which obscures reality”, proving that the obscurity of The Thin Blue Line led viewers to rationalize and make a decision about the case on their own, instead of paying attention to the facts, because we prefer closure instead of “the discomfort of unending mystery”. In the end, the docudrama came to stand in place of reality.
In chapter six, Sherwin begins with a rule of thumb that laid out the theme for the chapter, “whatever the visual mass media touch bears the mark of reality/fiction confusion”. As law stories are some of the most popular for T.V viewers, there is no denying that law is intentionally or not intentionally affected by visual mass media. But, what I think stood out as the worst effect of visual mass media on law, is the bias it can create. Sherwin cites examples of lawyers using the media to rally public opinion in order to pressure trial participants, and said that judges can sometimes “be susceptible” to this kind of pressure. Another problem Sherwin cites is the “prototypical” cop show. As we have learned with Law and Order, the crimes that are shown on T.V, and are therefore a part of the “public consciousness”, are almost always dramatized versions of extremely rare and violent cases. In turn viewers feel “the need to punish” criminals. So, this idea seeps into real life when these people become jurors. Now, “public shaming is on the rise”, and it is up to the individuals to decipher reality from fiction in law.
Web Blog Post #1
I found each group’s use of logos and ethos the most persuasive elements in their arguments. In the Johnson Family v. McDonald’s scenerio, I felt that including the doctor visit in overview added to the argument’s credibility. The group’s use of pathos made you sympathize with the Johnson family and dislike the evil mega corporation of McDonald’s. In terms of the opposing opinion, the availability of nutritional information weakened the Johnson family’s argument. If nutritional information is readily available there is no way that the Johnson family can plead ignorance.
In the affirmative action scenario, I found the supporting facts very persuasive. The statistics about the smaller gap between SAT scores and socioeconomic level, and the higher minority college drop out rate in comparison to white male and females strengthened the opposing argument.
In the Smith & Smith v. Valley Insurance scenario, the opposing opinion’s argument’s use of reasoning was very strong. They pointed out that it would be far too costly for an insurance company to test all their clients, and it would be an invasion of privacy. They also posed the question why should all clients be tested when there is only a few clients that abuse the system, which was also a valid point.
All of the cases included both rational and emotional elements. One point When the Law Goes Pop stresses throughout the novel is that lawyers are storytellers. Their goal is to persuade the jury. Like lawyers, our class became the storytellers, whose mission was to persuade our peers. We used the same techniques lawyers use in order to persuade the class, and strengthen our arguments.
Weblog Part 2
Chapter 4
I think that the most important point that Sherwin makes in this chapter is that the biggest trials at a given point in society, those that receive the most attention, are examples of or influenced by what is occurring in society at the time. In most of the cases that Sherwin describes as examples of this, there is a clear “hero” or martyr for each cause even though he may not be a true hero or martyr. John Brown, for example, died fighting for a cause that he believed in. He didn’t die to prove a point about himself but instead to inspire others to change how society viewed slavery and the mistreatment of slaves. This shows how at this point in time, society was beginning to question the way they had been living. It made Brown a martyr, a symbol of a change in society, and an idol for the people in society.
Chapter 5
This chapter focused mainly on the fact that how a story is told in court affects how a jury decides. Sherwin says that people like clear and simple stories, without confusion or grey areas. Unfortunately with the law, this is hardly ever the case. In the story told by Sherwin, Randall Adams was tried by a jury, found to be guilty and was placed on death row for execution. Twelve years later, after the release of a movie which documented his case, Adams was retried and found to be innocent. The documentary was able to overturn the case because it told the story two ways: one very clear (“linear’) approach and another more confusing approach. The audience didn’t like the confusing approach at all and was therefore forced to agree with and align themselves with the clear approach, which pointed to Adams’ innocence. Sherwin’s point in this story was that, depending on how a story is told, the trial could have two very different outcomes, which doesn’t necessarily mean that justice is prevailing in the legal system.
Chapter 6:
Sherwin’s main point in this chapter is that the combination of media in law and law in media tampers with the effectiveness of the legal system and is only to give the façade that justice is always served. He mentions that how the legal system is portrayed in the media changes how society views the legal system. According to Sherwin, the public’s image of a “criminal” has changed based on the media portrayal of what is a criminal. This causes problems when a jury, made up of jurors who represent society, comes to a trial with a media-influenced mold of a typical criminal, thereby skewing their opinions and the trial. This mixing of media and law is causing the legal system to have more and more problems with biased and ineffective trials.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Main Points in When Law Goes Pop Chapters 4-6
Weblog Part 2
In this chapter Sherwin looks at cases that Romanticized criminal acts, making the accused into a relatable character rather than a common criminal. One such case was the case of John Brown. This was one of the first mass mediated "notorious trials" in American history. Brown used this to turn his trial into what "was meant to be a tale of spiritual courage and moral fortitude that would awaken the country from its complacency about slavery." (78) He succeeded in romanticizing his trial and gaining praise from many across the country despite the fact that some of his crimes were rather heinous ("the Pottawatomi massacre") Sherwin points out that the nation was so enthralled by this great romantic story of courage and bravery that John Brown the man was all but forgotten. This is becoming more and more common, he points out at the end of the chapter.
Chapter 5: The Postmodern Challenge
Sherwin points out that people like their stories neat, with recognizable characters and familiar motives. He says that this is a problem because neat stories tend to leave things out. He then goes on to describe the case of Randall Adams and his accusation of the murder of officer Robert Wood. Randall Adams was found guilty in the original, and seemingly unfair, trial, but after serving twelve years in prison was finally released after a documentary entitled The Thin Blue Line was released showing linear and non-linear versions of the story, which lead viewers to want to believe the more linear version. Sherwin says at the end of the chapter, "we must accept greater responsibility for the legal realities we help establish when we tell or accept one legal story rather than another."(138-139)
Chapter 6: The Jurisprudence of Appearances
Sherwin gives us a "rule of thumb" at the beginning of this chapter: "Whatever the visual mass media touch bears the mark of reality/fiction confusion." (141) then he introduces another rule: "once you enter the realm of appearances it may be difficult to control how the image spins." (141) He supports these statements with Supreme Court cases, and talks about how television has changed law in the modern day, going so far as to say that a defendant cannot get a fair trial because the jurors will see all of the mass media "reality/fiction confusion" and become biased. Popular culture is now shaping law according to Sherwin.
Weblog Part 1
I was already against the Johnsons, as I knew that it was easy to gain information about McDonald's foods and that most, if not all, of the nutrition information is readily available at the restaurant, but I could see that when these facts were shown to the rest of the class that they seemed to lean more towards the McDonald's side than the Johnsons'. The same can be said of the affirmative action case. When some facts were shown an overwhelming majority was against affirmative action, again the facts defeated the emotional story. I thought surely the sad story of the Chestnuts would win over these tough "jurors," but I was wrong. After considering the costs of mass drug testing and the invasion of privacy they decided unanimously against the Chestnuts. All of this points to evidence and facts as opposed to emotional appeal as the most persuasive in cases, at least with this group.
Weblog Part 1
From what I’ve heard all of my life, the hardest cases to decide in court are the ones that have emotional stories associated with them. In most tough cases, the deciding factors for the judges often come from the emotional appeals made by either the defense or the prosecution. As human beings, we often “put ourselves in other people’s shoes,” so to speak. We can’t help but align ourselves with the problems of others and often times the attorneys use this to their advantage.
In When Law Goes Pop, this is the same argument that the author, Sherwin, makes. He says that the jurors are interested in the lives of the parties involved in the trial and that often times the attorneys use this interest and compassion to their advantage. They don’t always play up the facts and hard truth so much as they play up the emotions involved and paint pretty pictures of the people’s lives.
As far as I’m concerned, however, I think I am an exception to the rule. If I were a juror in any of the cases discussed in class, Sherwin would have been dead wrong about me. In each of the cases, my first instinct was to empathize with the sob stories told by each group, but once I heard some hard facts from each case, I changed my mind. In the McDonald’s case, I first felt bad for the hardworking family. Once I heard that the nutrition information is posted in McDonalds however, I decided that that fact outweighed the fact that they were busy. In the affirmative action case, I originally felt bad for the struggles of the athletic girl. After I researched the facts behind affirmative action, I decided that it did more harm than good, regardless of the few sad stories that could be told. In the case with the Smith family, I started off thinking that it was the insurance company’s fault that the boy died. I looked further into the cost effectiveness of drug tests and actually considered the number of people that would have to be tested as well and realized that there was more the family could have done.
Class Presentations
As we learned from the episode of Law and Order this week, when lawyers successfully pull the heart strings of jurors by displaying information in a story, they try to make the jury feel empathetic for their client, usually by making their client out to be a victim. This supports what we learned in "When Law Goes Pop", that appealing to the jury in an emotional way rather than a factual way can "tip the scale" for a jury. But, when I looked back on my observations on the presentations, I found that there was a trend on what swayed my opinion in each. After each presentation I wrote in some form that statistics and the storyline helped me decide which side to take. Instead of only paying attention to the pathos appeal, I was also strongly influenced by the logos in each situation. Although some of the statistics were one sided, it was hard not to pay attention to them once I heard them. The statistics helped me rationalize my decision, but knowing the story behind each statistic and presentation, made the arguments even stronger. So, a mix between the two is what really convinced me in each case.
Weblog Part Two
Weblog Part Two
Chapter Four: The Law of Desire
Sherwin discusses how notorious trials become either reflections of the culture of society or an influence of it. When talking about the John Brown trial, he does not focus on the trial or the facts themselves, but how John Brown, even though found guilty and hung, became an idol of culture. Sherwin talks about how the Romantic Movement made Brown into a hero who fought for more than himself but for morals that he represent, and became a symbol. While the leader of the abolitionist movement, such as Fredrick Douglass said he did not do anything to benefit the enslaved, but just gave white northern something to be proud of that was easier than actually progress. Sherwin talks about the cultural cost that forward movement would cost, and how it is easier to just make someone into a symbol that makes society feel better.
Chapter Five: The Postmodern Challenge
Sherwin talks about how law is not a black or white subject, whereas there must be lots of depth involved. He talks about how Morris just tries to make the Adams case into simple common sense whereas there is a linear historic path to follow, that shows corruption in the legal system, and a complex nonlinear background that bring doubt to the whole case. These two factors provide a half-truth that can only produce one answer, that Adams is innocent. Sherwin has much disdain over how people like Morris convert law into a story that can be twisted to promote either side, and can prevent justice from being served.
Chapter Six: The Jurisprudence of Appearance
The most important part of this chapter is the rule of thumb that Sherwin gives in the first few lines, "Whatever the mass media touch bears the mark of reality/fiction confusion." Sherwin believes the media ruins the purity of law, when law firm use public relations and new channels to promote strong images for their side. An example is the husband who is crying in the graveyard because of his wife dying because of a medication. This is powerful because the imagery is so strong, but the text of what the husband is saying has little to do with the legal trial and more to do with making you feel sympathy for his great loss. When lawyers can use the media more than facts to sway opinions, Sherwin views this as a tremendous problem that is only getting worse.
Weblog #2: Chapters 4-6
Weblog #1: Class Presentations
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Weblog Part 1
Weblog Part One
From using what I heard in class, I think it is all about if the prosecutor can make a emotional presentation to make the accuser really look like a victim. In the fast food case, I never felt sympathy for the victim because it was a conscious choice for the family to eat there, and McDonald’s is obviously unhealthy for you. But, in the affirmative action case, I felt sympathy towards the victim, and felt like I was going to fix the wrongs by helping her out. In When Law Goes Pop, when the story of the man who killed the Marshalls is brought up, the defense makes him look like the victim, and the wrongs will be righted only if he is found innocent. This feeds to our sense of right and how we want to be heroes in our own way, and helping a victim in court is a much easier way of doing that than putting on a costume and acting like a superhero. By playing to this sentiment of heroism seems to be the most important way of changing someone’s opinion. Robin Williams’ character did the same thing in the episode of Law and Order: SVU when he talked to the jurors about not being sheep and having opinions of their own. This makes the jurors feel more important that just voting to put a sex offender in jail, it makes the heroes standing up to the corrupt police trying to put a good man in jail.