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 four “The Law of Desire”, Sherwin discusses notorious cases in our country’s legal history, and the “nation’s effort in the course of historic notorious trials to find safe haven in collective fantasies that fend off…the urgencies of deep cultural and social conflict”. Sherwin points out three cases, John Brown’s case in 1859, Henry Ward Beecher’s case in 1875, and Harry Thaw’s case in 1907, as three of our nations’ notorious cases in which cultural anxieties were associated with each one. In each situation, the cases “infuse[d] the particular facts of a specific legal controversy with larger meanings”, which led to the nation to think about the trials on a symbolic level, the meaning in the events ever occurring at all, rather than the facts at hand and the person on trial. In the case of John Brown, even though he was convicted and hung, the “legal meaning of the trial and factual inconsistencies” of Brown’s life were easily forgotten because of the character of a romantic hero that he took on throughout the trial. In the end, in him being hung, he became a sacrifice for his cause, rather than a convicted criminal.


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.

Main Points in When Law Goes Pop Chapters 4-6

In Chapter 4, titled "The Law of Desire," Sherwin discusses famous historical cases that "point to three discrete kinds of cultural anxiety." When I first read this, I was thinking, "What, cultural anxiety?" But then I found it to be really interesting once he used the cases to support his classifications. He talks about the "moral anxiety" of John Brown's trial, where he led the Harper's ferry raid, and the media coverage that was allotted to his trial. Sherwin also talks about how the trial was romanticized; slavery was a huge ethical issue of the time, and this is why Sherwin chose to classify John Brown's trial under this category. In addition, the raid was controversial because of the seventeen lives that were lost, and was it justifiable? There are many ethical components of this issue, and Sherwin references a Thoreau quote regarding Brown which I thought applied well, saying he "forgot human laws and paid homage to an idea." Sherwin then goes on to talk about "epistemological anxiety" in the adultery trial of Henry Ward Beecher. Because Beecher was a religious leader and yet he was being charged with adultery, epistemological anxiety rose from people's distrust, or the worry that there might be more than meets the eye. He also discusses socioeconomic anxiety, which I found to be basically how it sounds, the worry that status can find you favor even as it applies to legal matters. Sherwin sets these classifications in part because he believes in precedent and that the past, especially in legal matters and media, affects the future. He says. "Simply stated, the lesson learned is that for every denial of factual reality, for every fantasy falsely purchased at trial, there remains a cultural debt that must be paid. That debt serves as a driving force behind notorious trials to come. Like a symptom, the hidden costs of collective fantasy can come back to haunt us."He believes that these past trials still play a role even though they have been long decided, and the fact that they were so romanticized was important.

In Chapter 5, The PostModern Challenge. Sherwin discusses postmodern storytelling and how it plays a role in legal action. This reminded me of the first chapters we read, when it talked about the influence of media on law and also the influence of law on media. He uses the murder case of Randall Dale Adams and how use of media through a film made by Errol Morris ultimately set him free. This example was about positive media influence and its role in this case, but it may also be negative. For example, OJ Simpson threatened to sue Time Magazine for their edit of the cover photo. The cover showed a darkened mugshot that made him to look scary and almost evil. This was an example of how media swayed the public against a person on trial in a publicized case. Sherwin also makes reference that media influence is not solely responsible and there must be valid supporting material; the media cannot stand on its own.

In Chapter 6, The Jurisprudence of Appearances, Sherwin again hits on the use of media to away an audience's opinion. Media cannot be used in the courtroom, but this does not mean that it does not play a role. Sherwin talks about our legal system and the supreme court and the concept of a jury made up of American citizens. He talks about the massive coverage that is "the news" that keeps us updated on the current issues and legal proceedings. While 100 years ago it was not nearly as big of an issue, mass media has infiltrated our lives to such a degree that it is impossible to separate it from our legal system. The media sways our opinions and as Americans, and especially jurors, our opinions have the ability to be voiced in our legal system.

Weblog Part 2

Chapter 4: The Law of Desire

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

When deciding tough cases, the emotional appeal of the a person's argument is very persuasive. Many jurors would be tipped by these sad stories and want to help the families or individuals that had suffered. In all of the presentations there was a lot of emotional appeal. The Johnson family was too busy to buy anything other than fast food for their children and it lead to them having high cholesterol and abnormal weight gain. Ebony got an opportunity she would not have normally had at a college and took advantage, eventually opening a charity to help others achieve their dreams. the Chestnut family could still be intact if the insurance company had only blood tested. These all are things that could sway jurors. However, I think that the most persuasive evidence that "tipped the scales" for me were the facts and statistics brought to light during the debates.

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

I still definitely agree with Sherwin's idea of legal storytelling in "When Law Goes Pop". He illustrated how persuasive storytelling in the courtroom is, especially when examples from popular media are brought in. As a juror, it made it more difficult for me to decide against the people whom the presenters told the stories about. In each situation it was hard not to feel bad for the people that were made out to be the victims. For the Mcdonalds case I was drawn to the sad stories of the victims, and combined with the astounding statistics of McDonalds' nutrition, I chose the side of the portrayed victims. In the insurance company case I chose the side that the group did not present, but this again, was because when I thought about the other side it appealed to me emotionally, and I also rationalized my decision by thinking out the factual information involved. In the affirmative action case I also sided against the victim in the situation, but this time my decision was based almost completely on the statistic about Stanford University and how the implementation of affirmative action completely backfired. But, even though this statistic influenced me the most, I think it was because it not only appealed to me logically but it also appealed to me emotionally.

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

Chapter 4: The Law of Desire

In this chapter of "When Law Goes Pop", Sherwin analyzes well-known trials that "illustrate specific cultural conflicts and evasions that have occurred at critical junctures in our history". The three cases he looks at all represent Romanticized acts of crime that represent social issues during that period. For example in Tilton vs. Beecher, Beecher, who is a well-respected social and spiritual leader, is accused of having an affair with His best friend Tilton's wife. The ultimately decision of the court in this case was to decide whether to believe in the honesty of man, or to convict Beecher, revealing the hypocrisy and lies of society as a whole. This trial forced society to realize that man can no longer be trusted. In the cases described in this chapter, there is a Romanticized "hero" that takes on the law as a sacrifice to the greater good of society, or so they think. John Brown began a revolt as a sacrifice to all the slaves that had been and were still being mistreated, in hopes of beginning an uprising that would set all of the slaves free. Beecher allows himself to be a conservative, spiritual representative in court, when he in fact knew he was dishonest and a hypocrite, to preserve the greater appearances of truth and honesty in mankind. And lastly, Thaw establishes himself as a "hero", killing the man that took advantage of the socioeconomic anxiety of his wife. In all of these cases, crimes revealed growing anxieties and issues present at those times in history.

Chapter 5: The Postmodern Challenge

In this chapter of "When Law Goes Pop", Sherwin reveals that people prefer stories to be neat with recognizable characters, and that this idea is no different while in court. He determines this by detailing the case of Randall Adams and the effects that a movie on that case ultimately had on the outcome of the trial. In court, Adams was found guilty and placed on death row for 12 years, when the documentary on the trial reversed the court's decision, setting Adams free. This movie, The Thin Blue Line, took two approaches to telling the story of what happened with Adams and Harris. The first approach, was the linear frame, that told the stories facts and details in an orderly, chronological fashion. The other approach, the nonlinear frame, told the story in a way that confused the issue, so that the audience could see all the possible scenarios, all equally able to occur. This approach also used cartoons and images to show that Adams killing the officer was in fact fictionalized and ridiculous. Ultimately, this nonlinear approach forced the audience to agree with and cling to the linear, finite story line. Another issue that Sherwin approaches, is the fact that we often associate ourselves with the character that identifies most with our current surroundings. In this case, Harris was a teenage boy from the area, whereas Adams was a drifter and an outsider. Instead of focusing on outward appearances, the court should have listened to the facts and history of the case.

Chapter 6: The Jurisprudence of Appearances

In this chapter of "When Law Goes Pop", the author begins by issuing a rule of thumb, "Whatever the mass media touch bears the mark of reality/fiction confusion". Sherwin explains that the presence of media in law and law in media is often to keep up appearances that justice is being served. By supporting this with cases from the Supreme Court, Sherwin says that, "The high court has long maintained a concern for the appearance of justice , insisting not only that justice must be done , but that the public must also perceive it as being done." Sherwin also describes that as a result of television shows on crime and law, the public has a distorted view of what a criminal truly is. Not only is this effecting the public's perceptions, but it is also shaping law that is made in the courtroom, where people have preconceived notions about what a criminal really is and looks like. Similarly, the presence of law in the news, movies, and other sources surrounding the actual case greatly impact the juror and their opinion, which is ultimately in direct objection to due process laws. The defendant is no longer given a fair trial by an unbiased jury. Popular culture in law is not only shaping culture, but it is shaping what makes law.

Weblog #1: Class Presentations

In deciding tough cases, I think it is most often the defense's ability to appeal to the jurors emotionally that influences their decisions. Such as in our group presentations, I was most affected by the stories that included a victim in which I could feel sorry for, empathize with, and therefore, allow myself to imagine myself in a similar situation. In the case Johnson vs. McDonald's, I was most influenced by the fact that kids were the ones that were suffering as a result of McDonald's actions. I think it would be hard to any juror to hear about the rapidly declining health of a child and not want to punish whomever is responsible. While the appeal to logos by including the statistics and factual information behind McDonald's food was also influential in this case, the appeal to pathos is what would essentially "tip the scale" in this decision because so many jurors would be able to relate emotionally to a child or loved one being affected by being unaware of the harmful nutritional value of McDonald's food. In the case on affirmative action, I was most likely to side with being for affirmative action after hearing about the struggles and inability of the young Black girl to achieve success without affirmative action. I honestly felt sorry for her because she was successful in school, but because of prejudice, would never be able to succeed in college or the workplace. If affirmative action would give everyone equal opportunity, then I would be all for it. Whereas the numbers and percentages used in this case were effective in demonstrating the unequal distribution of races in college campuses, it was in fact the personal account of an individual that was most influential for me. It allowed the listener to empathize with the individual who is hindered by their race. Lastly, in Smith vs. Valley Insurance, the most influential part of this case was the emotional appeal to the jurors by detailing the preventable death of a minor. Specifically, I think the pictures were most effective in making the viewers see the mother as the one to blame for the child's death.

In all of these cases, there were both rational and emotional means taken to influence the decision. However, it is most often the emotional appeals that impact a court's decision. In "When Law Goes Pop", Sherwin reveals that attorneys are ultimately telling a story when presenting their arguments and that those listening like neat stories with recognizable characters. Not only do emotional appeals provide a "neat" story that details the victimization of a character, but these appeals also make the jurors empathize with the party involved, ultimately giving them recognizable characters they are able to relate to. In this book, however, Sherwin is questioning the impact that media and popular culture have on a system that so heavily relies on the presentation of a "story". Such as in Smith vs. Vally Insurance, the pictures of the victim and his mother were what were so influential. However, what if these images were not entirely factual given the circumstances. An entire case would be based on images that do in fact grasp the audience, but do so on the wrong basis. Ultimately, the dependency we have on emotional appeals and popular culture could have detrimental effects on our judicial system if we take advantage of it.

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.

Class Presentation Blog

This Law and Order episode was heavily centered on persuasion. After all, the man (I am forgettting his name now) worked to persuade nearly everyone he came in contact with. In one of my other classes, multimodal communications, we discussed Lunsford's book "Everything's an Argument," which basically reiterates its title, and I found it to be pretty convincing. Most of the things around us, from flyers to the internet to people, to street signs present some form of argument. However, the book also made reference to how argument was not always a bad thing, even though the word may bring up negative connotations. For example, a stop sign is making an argument, but it is for safety reasons. One thing I noticed about this episode was that the man made so many arguments, but they were self-centered arguments and they were also very persuasive. I just realized that our blog post was about our class presentations so I am sorry about that but I am going to switch gears! I found that emotional appeals, or pathos, were most effective in our class presentations. I noticed that each group used an example of a person or family and how their lives were affected by the different issues. This made their issues relatable, and in my opinion, more persuasive. Similar to the law and order episode, the man's use of appeal to pathos when questioned about burning the house down also helped to "tip the scale" for the jurors. In addition, logos also may help to tip the jury. For example, in our class presentations, we discussed how should it be required that McDonalds post their nutrition facts on every menu? I mean, doesn't everybody know that a diet of hamburgers, fries, and soda isn't healthy and if consumed regularly will likely lead to weight gain? Also, in the law and order episode, the man used an appeal to logos in asking what his motive would be and what evidence did they have against him. While I still thought him to be guilty, he had a decent argument, good enough to sway the jurors. The authors view in When Law Goes Pop is that media plays a very persuasive role and can influence law, just as law influences media. As we have talked about in class, Law and Order can play a big role in influencing the perceptions that average American citizens have of our legal system. When you spend more time watching Law and Order or other legal based television shows than you do in a courtroom, then it is understandable how this can occur. Also, I think that the author of When Law Goes Pop would agree with me when I say that appeal to pathos is not only the most persuasive, but also might be the most common. Emotion plays a large role in our lives, and rhetoric that is aimed at this is likely to be effective.

Virginia Bruch

The Allure of Crime

The Allure of Crime episode of “This American Life” was a very interesting view into criminal minds. Because I frequently watch TV shows such as Criminal Minds or Law and Order, I think that I have gotten stuck in the mind set that most criminals are really twisted and terrible people. I definitely don’t condone the things that were done in the three particular stories in The Allure of Crime, but I was surprised at how empathetic I felt when I knew the background of the criminals. I was particularly interested in the stories of the bank robber and of the woman who pocketed cash at her hotel job.

You almost had to feel bad for the bank robber. His childhood story was sad, his mother died when he was 9, his father was unable to cope with the situation, which left him as a minister that beat his two sons. When the bank robber was a teenager there was a particularly bad night of beating after the boy had told his father’s girlfriend that his father beat his brother and himself. His father stepped out of the house in the middle of the episode and in that time the boy hid a knife under his pillow. When the father returned and proceeded to beat him, he stabbed him in the neck. As his father was laying on the floor the boy told him that he had brought this on himself. In the interview he said that it was almost a religious thing for him, a “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” kind of situation. As he grew up he didn’t have the motivation for a job, but he had an impulse to spend a lot of money. So, he robbed banks, and eventually went on a 14-month bank robbing spree. It was clear in the interview that this man was using robbing banks as an outlet, to get all of the things he couldn’t have earlier in his life and much much more. As I said before, I felt empathy for him, knowing how terrible his childhood was, and how he felt like he had nothing to turn to except robbing banks, but I also know that no matter what, what this man did was not right. There are definitely other ways to take your feelings out rather than committing crimes.

Julia, the woman who stole money from the hotel she worked at, was a harder character for me to decipher. She seemed like the came from a pretty good family, and the only real hardship she described in her interview was her dream job at MGM falling through. This left her with a job working as an assistant bartender, handing out tickets for drinks, at a hotel. Her stealing first began in a way that she thought was justified. The hotel wouldn’t pay for her parking while she worked, so she stole the money to pay for her parking. Of course, the stealing escaladed because she got such a high off of it. But, what made the story more intriguing is that she had a very close relationship to God, and even thought of him as her sidekick in crime. She donated some of the money she stole to the church, which in some way I think acted as a penance for the crime she was committing daily. I felt less empathetic for Julia than I did for the bank robber. While I understand that she was going through hard financial and emotional times, I still don’t ever think there is a justification for stealing. But, knowing her story and her character definitely led me to feel a little empathy for her, and without this information I would have just written her off as another terrible person who turned into a criminal.

“This American Life”

The first story that affected me was the story of the abused bank robber. The boy’s father was abusive priest. The boy swore he’d stab his dad if he beat him or his brother again. The dad picked up on the fact that boy had told Susie, the dad’s girlfriend, about the abuse. The dad tricked the boy and the boy confessed to ratting out dad to Susie. After the boy confessed, the dad beat him so badly that he later ended up in the hospital. During the beating, the dad took a break and left the house. The boy took the opportunity and put a knife under his pillow. The dad came back into the room and started to disassemble weights. The boy stabbed dad in the neck with the knife and said “you did this to yourself” as the dad lay on the floor bleeding. The dad survived but lost sons to foster care. The boy stole instead of working because he didn’t want to. He went on a 14 month bank robbing spree because he wanted to spend tons of money. His reasoning for robbing was because his mom died and his dad was abusive. The robbing gave him power, was validating, and he could make people experience what he had to.

This story particularly affected me because it shows the background behind a thief. I feel bad for the robber because typically you think of a robber as a bad person but he had actual reasons for robbing. While they weren’t necessarily good reasons, they made sense. It gave him the power that he didn’t have when he was growing up.

The old woman was accused of stealing from a really crowded store. When the police showed up, she emptied her purse and they accused her of taking the aspirin. After a while, she finally owned up to taking the aspirin and had to face to consequences. She shoplifted her whole life and doesn’t see herself as a thief. When she was younger, she couldn’t wear hair up so she shoplifted bobbypins and she couldn’t wear earrings so she took whatever she wanted to. The shoplifting allowed her to pull something off somebody else couldn’t so she felt good. She kept the shoplifting a secret from everyone she knew. She shoplifted whenever she felt like it because it made her feel better. She did it to not be lonely and to be on her own and take her mind off of the pain and being lonely in the nursing home.

This story affected me in a similar way as the first one did. When most people see a thief, they see a terrible person, somebody who does it because they’re bad. This woman stole because it was one of the only things she could control in her life. I feel so bad and its hard to blame the woman after hearing her story and reasons for shoplifting.

Both of these stories make me question why I judge people so quickly. Once you hear that somebody is “bad,” most people immediately assume they’re just bad people. After hearing somebody’s story you make a different decision on what you think about them. Everything relates back to “judging a book by its cover,” and these stories are the perfect reason not to.

The Allure Of Crime

Julia Sweeney moved from Spokane, Washington to Los Angeles to pursue her dream of being an accountant. When her job at MGM fell through, she began working at a hotel bar as an assistant bartender. She was upset that the hotel wouldn't pay her parking fees, so she began to steal the three dollars it cost to park. Soon this escalated into her stealing as much 1000 dollars on her most prolific night. Throughout this she was very religious and donated a lot of money at mass. She said god was like her "pimp," she had to pay him off since he was the only one that knew about her crimes. She says she got a "high" from the thefts, she became a slave to the rush. It got so bad that she would park her car in a dark spot in a dangerous neighborhood just so she would have to run fearfully through downtown L.A. and she would risk dangerous roads to get back to her minimum wage job just to steal. This story was intriguing because she seemed to be a fairly innocent person. I was surprised that it got so bad so quickly, but it shows that even small crimes can be dangerous roads that lead to bigger things.

Joe Lawya was a bank robber. He claims to have robbed upwards of thirty banks. Joe grew up in a very religious family, his dad was very well read in the scriptures and had even learned Latin and Hebrew to better interpret them. Joe's mother died when he was nine, and his father soon became violent even going so far as to put joe in the hospital after he told his girlfriend that he beat his kids. These frequent beatings eventually lead Joe to stab his father in the neck and then he was placed into foster care. Once Joe got older, he started stealing cars and went to jail for a couple of years. When he got out, he began to rob banks. He talked about how different types of tellers were easier to rob, stating that "Asian and Black women were the hardest to rob" and "middle class White women were the easiest to rob." He said that he was sometimes even embarrassed by how easy it was. His story surprised me less than the Julia's, as this seems like more of the stereotypical "criminal upbringing." The troubled family and a lack of a good role model being major things that are often connected to criminals.

The Allure of Crime

The Allure of Crime

1. Julie was a young assistant bartender who stole the money from the drink tickets she sold; she made about $10,000 to $15,000 for her whole career. She did not believe she was doing anything wrong, because she was just at first stealing for what she thought the hotel owed her, like parking or lunch. But, soon it was just stealing for things she needed like extra money to pay for car insurance or to make up the rest of the rent. Finally she evolved into just stealing to steal like she did on New Years. The most interesting part of her story is when she talked about her close relationship with God and the Roman Catholic Church. Julie believed that God was her pimp or wing and she was doing him a service by stealing the money and donating it. I thought most criminals had “abandoned” God and just put themselves as the most important part. The other factor that contributed to her stealing was the high it gave her, like when she parked her car farther away just to run to it. The greatest example to get insight to Julie’s mind was the New Year’s theft where she went through so much trouble just to make it back and steal when she did not need the money. The biggest thing I got from the story is how many criminals turn to god even in their sprees because he provides a rationale for their ways.

2. Joe was a banker robber from Oakland, California who threatened tellers to give him money; he stole from over thirty banks. Joe had a very religious family including a father who was a priest, but when is mother passed when he was nine, Joe’s father became violent and beat his kids. Then Joe learned to pick locks and started stealing from the church, where he started crime. Than when Joe was in high school, his dad was angry that Joe told his girlfriend his Dad hit him, so he beat nearly to death, but Joe had a knife and stabbed him in the neck. After going to foster care and dropping out of Bible College, Joe turned to robbing banks. He said he loved the putrid smell of money and it made him happy. The reason he liked robbing white middle class women was because they were easy and he felt like he was sharing the violence and shock with them like when his mom died and his dad started beating him. He thinks that God and the hypocrisy he saw with God caused him to rob people. He has a much more tragic and twisted tale, where the roots of his crime come from a demented childhood, which I believe contributed to the violent nature of his crimes.

This American Life

The first story we heard on the “This American Life” episode was about a woman who pocketed money while selling drink tickets at a hotel. She was young and being paid minimum wage, and it all started out “innocent” as she thought, because she only stole three dollars in order to pay for the parking that the hotel did not cover. She thought this was unfair and that they should provide parking for free, and so this was how she first rationalized her theft. She began to steal greater amounts and rationalized it by saying that she was using it for good things, not to buy drugs or anything. She began to get a thrill from stealing, as she described it, and it drove her to steal greater amounts. I found it most interesting when she was describing her rationalization, was that she said that she felt like God was her “accomplice.” I also found it interesting that she said that she felt like she didn’t even feel like she was describing the same person when she told this story. She talked about how she liked spending time with God and how she felt like this time in her life actually drew her closer to him. Even though she was talking about stealing, I found her to be a likeable character somehow. I think that this just reinforced the fact that you cannot let yourself slip up and do even the smallest crime that you don’t think is a big deal, because it is still wrong and it can easily escalade.

The next story was about a man who committed a variety of crimes, such as grand theft auto, strong-armed robbery, bounced check, and multiple bank robberies (roughly 30). He said that he grew up in a religious household-he said that every decision was based on God in his family. From a very early age, his mother predicted that he would be involved in mission work. His mother died when he was still young, and his father became abusive. He began to resent his father, and with that, he also began to turn from God. His crime history began with stealing from his father. His father began dating a woman, and the son warned the woman about the father. The father sensed that the son had told Susie about his violent actions, and confronted the son. He admitted to it, and then said that it was the last time he would ever admit to a crime. After this, the father beat him, and then one day, the son stabbed the father. While I felt sympathetic towards the man at first, because his mother died and his father was abusive, my opinion changed when I heard his tone when he was describing the stabbing of his father. Also, when the woman said that he stole from his friends. What stuck out to me about this story was how sad it was, hearing about this boy go from having religious parents, and his mom feeling as if he was going to be a missionary to a major criminal. It made me sad to think about how things may have been different if the mom hadn’t died.

The American Life

I found the story about Julia Sweeney very interesting. What I found most compelling was that she viewed her crime as an opportunity, not a sin. I found it interesting that she thought she was further developing a person relationship with God through committing her crime. She said she thought of God as her ‘pimp’, and she was paying him off with the money she stole, which I found very odd. She made it sound as if stealing could be justified. At first she would steal in order to compensate her parking fee; this was her way of righting this injustice of having to pay for her parking. She also justified theft with the reasoning that she was using the money for good acts. She wasn’t buying drugs. She was donating money to her church, and paying off her college loans and other expenses. Even though stealing is wrong, she did not have evil intent. Her basic intention was to right a wrong not steal money from her employer. This did not change my mind about the act of robbery. It showed me a different perspective on theft, and how it can be justifiable to an individual.

In Joe’s story, I found it interesting that he felt validated from evoking terror in the individuals he robbed. He felt that it was his job to educate these individuals that life can seem perfect until something comes along and messes it up. This is how he felt when his mother died and his father started beating him. He was educating people about how the world really was and that life can go downhill very quickly. Joe’s story made me feel sympathetic. His mother dies at an early age then his father starts beating him. He went through several traumatic events that inevitably shaped his life, and the person that he became. His reasoning for robbing banks was very simple. He didn’t work and needed money. He wanted to wine and dine his friends and this was the way he did that. Also at the same time, he could educate people about life, while feeling validated at the same time. I found it very interesting that before he robbed banks, his body would shut down. Its like he knew what he was doing was wrong, and his body was trying to stop him from committing these acts. His story didn’t make me change my mind about the crime of robbery. It just reinforced the fact that people commit crimes for different reasons, and that traumatic events that occur during childhood can have a long term impact on an individual.

"This American Life"

Story #1: This story was about a woman that worked as a ticket seller for drinks at the bar of a hotel. What began as stealing a couple dollars every day, turned in to stealing hundreds of dollars a day. Ultimately, she stole over 10,000 dollars. There were two things that specifically struck me about this character. First of all, she never really seemed remorseful. She believed that she was owed this money indirectly through her services to the hotel, and that since she was using the money for good reason, that it was alright. Secondly, I couldn't believe that she thought she was an accomplice to God in doing this. That might have been one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Although her story was extremely selfish and ridiculous, I found myself changing my mind about what the typical thief is like. She was never intending to hurt anyone, and I think that's what we generally think about a person committing a crime.

Story #2: This story, about a senior citizen woman that gets a thrill out of shoplifting, was definitely the most compelling and shocking to me. We have this stereotypical image of a thief, and a sweet, old lady just does not fit that description. However, in this story, you learn that senior citizens shoplift more than most groups of people, and often, it is simply out of boredom. The thing that struck me the most about this woman was that she seemed to miss shoplifting. It had become an addiction to her, and she seemed to feel as if she could stay young by stealing. At one point, she says that she would much rather be out shoplifting than be in a home for seniors playing bridge. I honestly felt sorry for her that she depending so much on stealing as a source for happiness. This story really made me think of stealing as something that can be addictive, like a drug or alcohol for other people.

I thought this was really interesting because it made me think about the motives behind crime. Often we think of thieves as being these "bad" people that have no feelings or good intentions, but the people depicted in this show seem to be the complete opposite. I was surprised how often that these people felt as if the earned what they stole, and it made me question whether or not stealing could somehow be the result of an emotional disorder instead of a lack of morals.

When the Law Goes Pop!

Points:

1. There is a continuous cycle of pop culture’s influence on law. Pop culture is every changing in respect to storytelling styles and technologies. Pop culture, public opinion, and/or the media all have a profound influence on individuals. Lawyer must adapt their current persuasion, or storytelling techniques in regards to what cultural changes. They must do this in order to maintain their effectiveness on the audience they are trying to persuade. This includes both jury members and judges.

2. The extent to which law is converging with pop culture is a significant issue. Law is too easily influenced by public opinion and the media, which affects its stability and continuing legitimacy.

3. In the past, there was a print-based culture, one which used words to convey meanings. Today’s culture is image-based or associative cognitive. Visuals can be more power than print-media, because the public may take fiction as reality. As we discussed in class, viewers of Law & Order may take the show as reality, when in fact it is fiction. The show’s purpose is to provide entertainment not facts of legal processes.

4. I agree with the points provided in this book. The media and pop culture have a strong influence on the opinions of individuals. Pop culture’s influence on law has also become too strong, affecting its stability and legitimacy.

Group Project

We were thinking about doing it on some of the recent affirmative action votes that have been passed recently but we are not sure yet. The idea of state to overturn the affirmative action bill passed by JFK, and now state have decided not to give privileges with jobs or universities. It is still a rough idea, sorry for the delay I had a rough day with some stuff back home, and this slipped my mind.

When Law Goes Pop

When law goes pop!

1.Sherwin states the law is influenced by the media and vice versa, and that it has always affected media by know the media is affecting law to a great extend.

I agree with this because it is possible to see more people believing that what happens on Law and Order is what happens in the court room. With the line drawn more blurry in all forms of media of what is entertainment and what is facts, people have accepted television knowledge as good enough for them and this influences them in the courtroom.

2. He also makes a point about derealization of the trials, how they become a crazy media fiasco, where they are TV dramas made about real trials and movies that affect the courtroom.

I agree with this as well, when he talked about the case using Pulp Fiction as a method for persuading the jury or how the Buttafucco case became a TV show it shows how there is a disconnect between real-life and imaginary. When John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson play major roles in a trial through their movie, it is time to be concerned.

3. Sherwin talks about how we have become a visual society, where picture and movies that flash quickly can persuade us more than a well thought out argument.

Again I agree with this point, a flashy movie or a quick but striking picture can influence us more than a well thought out speech full of rhetoric. Similar to how Socrates thought people should try to take fancy and just state the fact, Sherwin makes the point that speech has lost its place in the court room, where the new forms of media have become king.

Group Presentation

Virginia and I have decided to focus our project on the display/availability of nutritional information in restaurants, including lists of ingredients in each dish in order to accommodate people with allergies or food intolerances. The question we will be investigating is, is it unethical and should it be against the law for restaurants to deny customers access to nutritional information and ingredients? There have been many books, such as “Eat This, Not That!” that deal with nutritional deception in restaurants, and shock readers with the nutritional information of various dishes in popular restaurant chains. If the restaurants had to display their nutritional information to the public, would it drive them to make their food healthier? These questions are examples of the ideas we will be exploring for our presentation.

P.S. Niko! You are welcome to be a member of our group!

When Law Goes POP

Three Important Points:

1)In chapter 1, Sherwin makes the point that "law is everywhere" (10). This might seem obvious, but I think that it help sets up the book, so that the reader is focused not only on law and it's fictional aspects, but also on the influence of law on our daily lives.

2)In chapter 2, Sherwin connects the idea that law is apparent in our daily lives, with the fact that visual mass media has an even stronger influence on our daily lives. Because of this, “law is not only collapsing into the popular, it is collapsing into an increasingly popular form of cultural postmodernism” (37). Therefore, lawyers increasingly have to tailor the content of their arguments to the medium that is most common to the jurors, visual mass media, in order to gain control over the reality of their cases.

3)In chapter 3, Sherwin gives a number of real-life examples of legal storytelling, showing that “truth is not easily divorced from fiction” in law, and that often times the truth is constructed at trial through a story, in order to connect the reality of the facts to the feelings (such as sympathy or antipathy) of the jurors towards the person on trial.

Discussion:

Honestly, I agree with each of the points that I picked up from the first three chapters of this book. Our society is so ingrained in the mass media, that it would be senseless not to believe that it has an effect on our justice system. But, I also think that in some situations, legal storytelling may not be as effective at finding the real truth, and may lead some juries to make the incorrect decision.

When Law Goes Pop!

Media affects American culture in general.

I agree with the point Sherwin is making with this idea. “Media” can be defined as newspapers, radio, television and the internet- all of which are widely available to and used by the general American public. The vast majority of Americans use at least one of these forms of media each day to inform themselves of the latest news concerning society. Whether this news is political, educational, entertainment, etc, most Americans consider it important. The news that Americans keep current on defines the way Americans act and live, thereby affecting and changing the culture of America. Since the media is the only way news is spread to Americans, it has the biggest affect on how the stories are told and how American culture is defined and affected.

Affect of media on the laws of society.

I also agree with Sherwin’s view of the Laws of society being affected by the Media. Here, Sherwin is talking more or less about how entertainment media affects the way Americans perceive social laws and norms. The common belief that violent TV shows and video games are causing an increase in crimes and violence is a perfect example of this point. Popular media is teaching the youth of America that violence is commonplace, diminishing the intimidation factor of consequences. Therefore some people would argue that certain offenses shouldn’t have legal consequences. That is a direct example of the media changing societal laws.

The importance of communication in law.

I agree with this point. In the common American courtroom, the jury is the entity that decides the verdict of the trial. Lawyers and attorneys use the jury to their advantage. They play to the jury’s emotions, dramatizing events and emphasizing certain things to make their point of view more appealing. Another side of communication is detail. Details add much more credit to stories and arguments. In my experience, I’m much more likely to believe a story in which small, seemingly unimportant details are included because they add dimension to the story. When lawyers, witnesses, and the accused communicate these details, the jury would probably be much more inclined to believe them and understand.

When Law Goes Pop Main Points

1. Our society and our perceptions of the world around us are affected to a great degree by media...."And where do they come from? For most people the source is not difficult to ascertain. It is the visual mass media: film, video, television, and to an increasing degree computerized imaging. This vast electronic archive provides us with the knowledge and interpretation skills we need to make sense of ordinary reality."

I agree with this point; I spend at least an hour each day, if not more on the internet. I get a lot of exposure to media whether that be through television, movies, facebook, or even twitter. Media affects my life to a large degree, and I would say that this is true of most the rest of our society.

2. The media also affects the laws of our society; both are very powerful forces in our society, and they both influence each other.

I also agree with this idea; just like one of the first days of class when we were talking about if media affects law and if law affects media. We applied this to law and order and decided that yes, this was true. Law affects media through this show, obviously, because it provides the foundation for the storyline. Also, the television show may affect real law, because the people that watch it may get skewed views of the real legal system and think that it functions the same way that it does on tv (maybe jury members) Law and order aside, I do think that both of these things, law and media, play a large role in our society, and because of this, they also do affect each other to a degree. Since the emersion of mass media, cases also get more coverage; we hear about more legal issues in more parts of the world than we would have in the past.

3. Pop culture and law are similar in some aspects..."Simply stated, popular culture, like law, helps to police conventional meetings and social practices."

I do think that because these two things are so powerful in our society, they do share some similarities. On the one hand, law is what our government uses as a standard of action and punishment. On the other hand, media shows us what is currently popular in society, and it in a way could be taken as showing us how to act or dress.

Group Idea - Laura and Kendall

Our issue: drug tests for welfare recipients.

Reasons for this: By issuing drug tests for those on welfare, we would be able to make sure those that are receiving welfare are in fact deserving of this money. For example, we don't want to waste money on someone who is a drug addict when there are others in greater need.

When Law Goes Pop!: Important Points

1) American culture is influenced by poplar media.
Americans are constantly influenced by what they see on T.V., and this carries over into the court room. Americans expect information more quickly, they are not as willing to wait around and dig for it in a lengthy opening statement and the quick images of television also make jurors more comfortable with visual aids than with simple explanations. Lawyers can us popular topics to connect to the jury.

2) Law affects and is affected by popular culture.
Americans have preconceived stereotypes and beliefs that they bring into the court room as jurors. Lawyers must be aware of this to be successful, and they use these beliefs to their advantage when presenting their case. The findings in each case can set precedents which can affect the culture and beliefs of Americans, such as the segregation laws eventually leading to racism being culturally unacceptable (in the United States as a whole).

3) Communication is important in law.
The way lawyers communicate with the jury is very important. A great example that Sherwin talks about in chapter three is storytelling. Attorneys can use their knowledge of the local mindset and beliefs along with the facts to spin a tale that, although it contains the right facts, may lead the jury to lean more in their favor. Take for example the story that Mr. Spence told about Randy Weaver. He took the facts and presented them to the jury in such a way that it made them sympathetic towards his client.

In looking at these three points, I agree with them all. American culture is affected not only by television but all forms of media. This is true as we see it everyday, especially with the prominence of the internet in today's society. Law is of course affected by culture and, in some ways, Law also affects American life. Finally, communication is extremely important in law; the way one presents his evidence will undoubtedly win or lose him a case.

When Law Goes Pop

Three important points:

1.Popular culture and law help to police conventional meanings and social practices.

-I agree with this statement. Popular culture demonstrates to us what is socially acceptable at a given point in time. Similarly, laws are there and are even adjusted to fit with a particular culture and their practices. Without both of these, social norms and meanings within a society would not be evident or in any way measurable.

2.TV and other forms of media serve as the measure of reality most people know.

-I agree with this statement. TV and other forms of mass media elicit emotional responses from the viewer, often resulting in them believing what they see or hear. As a result, what the viewer sees or hears from these media sources effects and determines what they consider to be real, even if it isn't true.

3.What we regard as truth is often what we want to believe.

-I agree with this statement. Whether something is true does not determine whether or not we believe it to be true. In the novel, for example, Sherwin uses the example of the movie Jaws. Even though people know that there is a small risk of being attacked by a shark, after this movie many avoided the ocean. If we view a shark attack and then believe we are at risk, our new truth will be that we are at risk.

Group?

I don't have a group for the project, and I was just wondering if there was a group that wouldn't mind having me. Let me know!
Here's my phone number: (701) 509-1920
and email: jallend@clemson.edu

Niko