1/29/30 Julia Song PD5

1/29/20 Julia Song Pd.5

Sophomores 2020: Blogger #22

Aim: How does characterization contribute to the development of the theme of JUSTICE?

Do Now: How can we define “justice”? How do we know when “justice” has occurred?

1. Think: My own definition of “justice” would be doing what’s right, and making sure that the people who have done wrong get punished. Justice occurs when people get what they deserve.
2. Pair: Riya
3. Share: My partner Riya defined “justice” in one word: fairness. She acknowledged that different people have different ideas of what’s fair, which I agree with. We both said that “justice” is not a simple term, which also linked to a previous quote that we learned from Macbeth: “Fair is foul, foul is fair.”

Ms. Fusaro decided to give us a live demo of what is fair or not, taking the tallest boys: Mark and Jayden. One by one, they jumped to see who could reach the highest point on the wall. The whole class agreed on this situation being unfair because Ms. Fusaro was shorter. However, Michelle made a good point because you cannot control your height and giving someone else a stool is unfair. I had this thought of putting Ms. Fusaro in heels so she could match the height of the other jumpers, but I realized that jumping in heels would also be unfair. Michelle Z proposed a new situation in which every candidate could be placed on a stool, the stool being a control variable in the so-called experiment. I disagree with this because the floor is equally flat for all of them. 

From this example, we can see that coming up with justice is very complex with so many different viewpoints. Some say that Ms. Fusaro not being able to touch the wall was fair because height is not something that can be controlled, while others see this as unfair because she is so much shorter than the other two candidates. 

False Equivalence Fallacy: It’s when you set up two opposing sides of an argument, and make it look like they hold equal weight, when they really don’t. And presenting both of these views as valid is a logical fallacy or a “false equivalence.”

Example: Apples and oranges are both round and grow on trees, so that means they must taste the same.

In this example, common traits are used as logical evidence, leading to the assumption. The two things may share some common characteristics, but they have important differences that are overlooked for the purposes of the argument. 

The video we watched on false equivalence can be seen in the real world. For example, in everyday media outlets, articles that attempt to cover both sides of the story but one side has little regard for the truth. False equivalence is also used in politics, in which the minor flaws of one candidate may be compared to the major flaws of another. 

Finally, we began reading “Twelve Angry Men.”  I played juror #4, he is described as a very serious and factual man. He is rich and very knowledgeable, hence his profession as a stockbroker. 

The scene unfolds: the jurors are still arguing with each other, juror 8 being the only one advocating for the suspect’s innocence. All the evidence was brought to light with the witness accounts. The old man heard noises, the lady across the street saw the man fall to the ground through the windows of a passing train , and the storekeeper selling the knife to the boy. The boy is also found to have a record of grand theft auto and mugging. However, the jurors couldn't help but talk about the boy’s upbringing in the “slums” as one of the reasons why he is guilty, claiming that they are the “breeding grounds for criminals.” We ended the reading with the guard coming in and juror 4 (me) presenting the knife that was supposedly used to stab someone. So far, the verdict is still guilty.

My Reflection: Today I learned that the requirements for fairness and justice are not set in stone. There are multiple viewpoints and criteria for each person, none of them are the exact same. I also learned a new fallacy of false equivalence, and how it can be used in the media and the justice system. While reading, I noticed that this applies to each juror. For example, juror 5 was raised in the slums so he empathized with the boy put on trial. However, juror 3 had a bad relationship with his son and was taking out his anger on the boy that supposedly murdered his father. I noticed that the jurors (especially 3 and 10) often used false equivalence because they were adamant on the suspect being guilty. They insisted that just because the old man downstairs heard the boy yell “I’m going to kill you” and the sound of a body thudding onto the floor, that the boy killed his own father.