978-1111346850 Lecture Note Part 3

C. Allow about 15 minutes for jury discussion and final consensus decision (or super-

majority if consensus is not possible). Make sure that each jury realizes that it must

present justification for its decision based on evaluating the evidence by using the 5

criteria. VARIATION: seek a class consensus after each jury decides verdict.

D. Discuss the evidence with the entire class. Address each of the 5 criteria used to

evaluate the evidence. This is an especially engaging way to familiarize students

with the criteria discussed in the text for evaluating information critically.

E. Processing (evidence/information for discussion)

1. Credibility:

2. Relevance: How relevant is her wearing a sexy teddy under her clothing when

she visits her professor? Is it relevant that she has had frequent sex

partners? Had sex with 2 men on

the incident occurred? How rele

flirtations and sexual relations with his graduate students? Would it have

been relevant to know whether the accuser had a history with previous sex

3. Currency: Professor had no criminal complaints or charges, but did have a recent

sexual relationship with a graduate student. Accused had a lot of sex

partners in the past.

4. Representativeness: Charge of sexual harassment against the male police officer

rape victims.

5. Sufficiency: Was the accusation of rape sufficiently supported?

LAW AND ORDER SVU HANDOUT

Each group will act as a jury and decide the guilt or innocence of the defendant accused of

rape. Concentrate on two things: 1) evaluating the evidence presented, and 2) achieving a

consensus decision.

I. Evaluating the evidence

A. Credibility: discuss whether the evidence and information from both sides in this

trial are believable and reliable. Which side has the most credible evidence?

Evaluate the main pieces of evidence. Be prepared to defend your conclusion with

specific examples.

B. Relevance: is all the evidence presented relevant to the charge of rape? Was there

any irrelevant evidence or information presented? Be prepared to provide examples.

C. Currency: was there any evidence and information presented either before or during

the trial that was not current? Does it matter?

D. Representativeness: was there any evidence or information presented that was

officers involved?

E. Sufficiency: did the prosecution meet its burden of proof by providing sufficient

evidence to warrant a finding of guilty on the rape charge? If yes, list the key

evidence that was sufficient for a finding of guilty. If no, in what ways did the

prosecution fall short?

A.

communication patterns and use supportive communication patterns.

B. Discuss all concerns of group members and attempt to resolve every issue.

C. Avoid adversarial, win-lose argumen

Discuss differences of opinion calmly and approach this activity as a problem to be

solved, not a contest to be won.

III. METROPOLIS ORDINANCE CIVIL SUIT MOCK TRIAL exercise

A. Purpose

1. Provide participants with experience in the consensus method of

decision making.

2. Reveal the primary strengths and drawbacks of consensus decision

making.

3. Permit a discussion of criteria for evaluating information in groups

B. Time required: 60-75 minutes

C. Instructions

1. Divide class into those who wish to be on juries (small groups of 5-7) and

those who wish to play parts in the mock trial: plaintiff team (2-4 members),

defense team (2-4 members), and witnesses (5 total).

2. Everyone involved in the mock trial who is NOT on a jury should be given a

copy of the handout provided below. Jurors should not be given the handout.

3. Allow the plaintiff team to prepare its two witnesses (Michael Kramer and

Brandon Broomfield) and the defense team to prepare its three witnesses

4. Conduct a trial with brief opening statements from both teams, all 5 witnesses

examined and cross-examined, and brief closing statements presented.

5. Jury groups will then deliberate openly in class among themselves for about

15 minutes to decide the case. Trial participants will listen in silence.

6. Each group will explain its decision and justify it on the basis of criteria

offered in the text for evaluating information.

D. Processing: discuss the case, the decisions by jurors, the criteria for evaluating

evidence and how it applies to this activity, and whether consensus was

difficult. POSTSCRIPT: this case is ba

HANDOUT

LOCATION: Metropolis

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Metropolis has been the target of numerous mass

demonstrations that have resulted in severe violence, even riots. The city council passed the

ordinance detailed below to keep the peace and to prevent further instances of mass

violence between protesters and police and between protesters and onlookers who disagree

dom of speech is a central issue: does the

ordinance place too many restrictions on free speech, or does it strike an acceptable balance

between the rights of protesters to exercise free speech and citizens of Metropolis to be

protected from violence and mass disruption.

MAIN ORDINANCE:

A. All protests and public demonstrations shall be limited to one such

demonstration per day

LAW SUIT PLAINTIFF CLAIMS: The Metropolis ordinance violates the civil rights of

citizens living in this “free country.” Michael L. Kramer was unlawfully and

unconstitutionally denied his freedom of speech and is suing the city of Metropolis,

the police department, and the city council for $5 million.

MAIN WITNESSES TO BE CALLED

Plaintiff

A. Michael L. Kramer–plaintiff who has filed suit.

B. Brandon Broomfield tropolis police during a

melee that broke out between demonstrators and onlookers.

Defense

A. Anthony Milpitas

maintaining law and order during the demonstration

B. Violet Jones occurred when onlookers attacked

demonstrators during the march; she suffered a gash to her head, bruises, and a

strained back requiring long-term therapy.

C. James Kilpatrick–Metropolis city councilman who helped pass the ordinance

DEPOSITIONS

Anthony Milpitas

Report of the Chief of Police

On July 5th, Michael L. Kramer led a march of approximately 10,000 demonstrators who

were specifically protesting the Metropolis ordinance passed on March 31st of this year

that places some limitations on public demonstrations in the streets of Metropolis. Mr.

Kramer never attempted to secure a permit for his march. Another legally sanctioned march

of approximately 700 people took place on the very same day. Mr. Kramer led his march

into several neighborhoods and locations in direct violation of the Metropolis ordinance.

The march began at 5PM, during rush hour, and lasted two hours past sundown. When Mr.

Kramer was confronted by me regarding his violations of the city ordinance, he sought to

justify his violations on freedom of speech grounds. I repeatedly asked him to cease his

demonstration and to encourage his followers to disperse. He refused. I ordered him

arrested and taken into custody, whereupon he posted bail.

Violet Jones

My name is Violet Jones and I was present during the mass demonstration on July 5th of

this year. I was not personally participating in the demonstration. I heard the noise created

by what appeared to be thousands of demonstrators, and I came to see what was happening.

Although I sympathize with the protesters’ viewpoint, I didn’t appreciate becoming

involved in the violent confrontations between some protesters and a few onlookers. The

fight that broke out appeared to be provoked by the onlookers. The demonstrators were

engaging in a peaceful, although noisy, protest. A few onlookers apparently disliked the

demonstrators’ point of view and they began taunting some demonstrators. Within a minute

or two, a couple of onlookers physically attacked some demonstrators, and a frightening

melee occurred. It seemed as though hundreds from both sides became involved. Police

quickly came to the scene and attempted to break up the violence, but with little success.

There were many injured in the encounter, including me. I suffered a severe gash to my

head, bruises in several places, and a strained back when I was thrown to the ground by

police.

James Kilpatrick

My name is James Kilpatrick. I am currently a member of the Metropolis City Council. I

voted to pass the ordinance Mr. Kramer is accused of violating. The basic justification for

the ordinance is to keep the peace and protect all of our citizens. When a march takes place

without adequate notice to the city and police, when it becomes overly large, and when it

intrudes on the peace and tranquility of neighbors uninterested in obtrusive and noisy

demonstrations in our city, the ability of authorities to enforce the law is jeopardize. Large,

unregulated demonstrations place a heavy burden on the resources of the city and on the

police department. Large demonstrations can easily get out of control, as did this one in

question. The police cannot adequately protect innocent bystanders from becoming

ensnared in violence when demonstrations become larger than about 1,000 individuals.

When police resources are stretched to the limit to control one large demonstration, they

cannot control any other demonstration on the same day occurring elsewhere in the city.

Crime rates increase when large demonstrations occur because police cannot enforce laws

and protect citizens when concentrating on a demonstration in one part of the city.

Michael L. Kramer–defendant

My name is Michael L. Kramer. I live in Ontario, California. I organized the march in

question because I feel strongly that the Metropolis ordinance is an unconstitutional

restriction on freedom of speech. I oppose this ordinance and sought to violate it directly to

make the following points:

1. Limiting demonstrations to 1,000 people is unduly restrictive, and impossible to enforce

(ever tried to count the size of a crowd?). A march’s success is largely determined by the

size of the crowd demonstrating. A thousand people march is not nearly as influential as a

march of 10,000. The “Million Man March” would have been ignored if it had become the

“Thousand Man March.” Plus, preventing anyone over 1,000 demonstrators from

participating denies them their freedom of speech.

2. The provision that a demonstration cannot occur at night and must not occur during rush

hour is ludicrous. How can you have a candlelight vigil to protest a war, for example,

during daylight hours. The rush hour provision is far too general. Our demonstration in no

Brandon Broomfield

My name is Brandon Broomfield. I am a resident of Metropolis. I participated in the

peaceful demonstration that occurred on July 5th. When counter-demonstrators began

physically assaulting me and many of my fellow protesters, I fought back. A huge fight

ensued and I was seriously injured and spent time in the hospital. I can say without

qualification that none of the demonstrators provoked violence. Our mere presence seemed

to be enough excuse for counter-demonstrators to attack us.

MOCK TRIAL JURY ANALYSIS

Each group acting as a jury will concentrate on two things: 1) evaluating the evidence

presented, and 2) achieving a consensus decision.

I. Evaluating the evidence

A. Credibility: discuss whether the evidence and information from both sides in this

trial are believable and reliable. Which side has the most credible evidence?

Evaluate

the main pieces of evidence. Be prepared to defend your conclusion with specific

examples.

evidence that was sufficient for your finding. If no, in what ways did the

plaintiff fall short?

A.

communication patterns and use supportive communication patterns.

B. Discuss all concerns of group members and attempt to resolve every issue.

C. Avoid adversarial, win-lose argumen

Discuss differences of opinion calmly and approach this activity as a problem to be

solved, not a contest to be won.

D. Avoid conflict-suppressing techniques such as coin flipping or swapping. Seek

er if he/she is the only one preventing

consensus (unanimity). A stand aside means a group member continues to have

reservations about the group decision, but, when confronted, does not wish to block

the group preference.

F. If consensus is impossible, seek a supermajority (at least two-thirds majority vote).

This should come only after unanimity cannot be achieved.

IV. “Brainstorming” exercise

A. Purpose: To acquaint participants with the brainstorming technique for

generating creative ideas in groups.

B. Time required: 25-30 minutes

C. Instructions:

1. Pick a campus problem (e.g., parking, cost of textbooks).

2. Define the problem, offer information explaining why the problem

exists, and indicate the effects of the problem. Some printed material

on the problem could be disseminated for students to read.

3. Tell students one class period in advance of group brainstorming to

generate individual lists of ideas for solving the problem. Have each

student bring his or her list of ideas to class.

4. Divide the class into groups

term groups).

5. Explain the guidelines for brainstorming.

6. Task for groups: generate ideas for solving the campus problem.

7. After 15 minutes of brainstorming, using individual lists as a

launching point, give groups 5-10 minutes to decide what is their best

idea, worst idea, and most humorous idea.

8. Have one member of each group report to the class how many ideas

they generated, then their best, worst, and most humorous ideas.

D. Processing the exercise

1. Explain when to use brainstorming in the Standard Agenda format.

2. Discuss the merits and demerits of brainstorming as a procedure for

generating creative ideas.

6 as a problem-solving task.

V. “Egg Drop” exercise

NOTE: This exercise can be used here or later as a part of “The Power Carnival”

A. Purposes:

1. To demonstrate reframing process of creative problem solving

2. To demonstrate the value of examining possible negative outcomes

3. To show the advisability of exploring the nature of the problem

before devising solutions.

4. To again emphasize that cooperation (sharing resources) can work

better than competition (hoarding limited resources).

B. Time required: 45 minutes

C. Instructions:

1. Divide class into groups of 5-7 members. Each group chooses an

uncooked egg.

2. Display the following materials: paper in 2 separate sets of 3 sheets

per set (different colors per set work well), a set of 4 index cards

(3 by 5), 2 rolls of scotch tape in dispensers, two yard-long strands of

twine or string, one set of 6 rubber bands in a paper envelope, a letter-size

envelope with about a dozen large paper clips in the envelope; 1 piece

of cardboard (8″ by 11″), 2 manila file folders, and 1 set of flex straws

(6 in the set).

3. Task: protect an egg from cracking when dropped from two stories

landing on pavement below. (Many colleges have walkways on

second stories of classroom buildings. Three stories would make an

even bigger challenge). The egg must be dropped by one member of

the group starting at chest high and it must be a free fall (no strings

attached to the protected egg to ease it down slowly). No one may

catch the egg; it must hit the ground unobstructed with whatever

protection that surrounds it.

4. Groups must bid for materials (see #2) in order to accumulate the

necessary items to protect their egg from breaking. Each group is

given 30 points. Begin bidding on any one of the items (paper,

cardboard etc.). The team that bids the highest number points gets the

protect their egg.

7. Take groups to the chosen place to

from each group, in turn, drops the protected egg to see if it breaks,

cracks, or remains unscathed.

D. Processing the exercise

1. This exercise requires groups to brainstorm possible solutions to the

problem before choosing one. What often happens, however, is that

one or two members just start wrapping the egg, taping it, or

whatever without thoroughly disc

problem solving technique.

2. Groups must engage in reframing as a creative problem solving

technique. The materials auctioned off to protect the egg are not

normally used for such a purpose. Group members must think of

these resources in completely different ways than normal

(reframing).

3. One common error made by groups is that they do not fully discuss

what could go wrong with their so

such discussion, serious flaws may be overlooked until it is too late

(time expires). Weighing the drawbacks of a solution as well as the

merits is step #5 of the Standard Agenda (see text).

4. Groups usually don’t think to cooperate and share resources

(swapping a piece of paper for a half-piece of cardboard, for instance,

or some tape for a 3″ by 5″ index card). The lesson of cooperation can

again be reinforced here by pointing out that creative problem

solving requires that groups think beyond inferences (e.g., facilitator

won’t allow sharing since resources were auctioned off).

VI. “The Marshmallow Challenge

A. Type Marshmallowchallenge.com into Google search window. You can now access

a TED talk by Tom Wujec (6:45 mins). He explains the creative problem solving

challenge and some interesting and amusing results. Show his brief talk after having

your class attempt the Marshmallow Challenge.

B. Have teams of four members do the marshmallow challenge.

C. Following the Egg Drop exercise, this can cement important points on teamwork,

cooperative problem solving, anticipating Murphy’s Law, and moving beyond

mindsets requiring reframing.

D. Variation: after four-member teams attempt the challenge, have the entire class

work together on a single design. Give the class a box of spaghetti, 5 yards of tape

and 5 yards of string, and five marshmallows all that must be placed on the top.

Discuss the importance of prototypes (to account for Murphy’s Law) before building

the final product. Does leadership emerge? What style?

A. Purposes:

1. To provide an opportunity for groups to use The Standard Agenda decision-

making process, with emphasis on the use of criteria.

2. To give groups experience using consensus decision making

3. To engage in a discussion of the merits and demerits of different group decision-

making methods.

4. To introduce discussion of ethics in group decision making.

5. To introduce value conflicts in group decision making.

B. Time required: 75 to 150 minutes (depending on version used)

C. Instructions:

1. Get a copy of the classic film Abandon Ship. The film is available

on videotape and can be ordered from amazon.com. This class

activity can be done without showing the film, but it will not have

the dramatic impact.

2. Divide class into small groups (symposium groups are best). Hand

out the materials describing the actual situation, the descriptions of

each survivor on board the lifeboat, the criteria page, the page for

listing who will be chosen to di

3. Begin showing the film when the Tyrone Power character becomes

captain of the lifeboat (about 20 minutes into the film). Play the next

35 minutes of the film until the captain decides that some survivors

will have to be put overboard. Stop the film. Do not show at this point which

survivors are chosen by the captain.

4. The groups will have 20-30 minutes to list and prioritize criteria for

deciding who will live and who will die. Emphasize that criteria

should be discussed and chosen separate from ANY discussion of

individual survivors. Once criteria have been chosen and prioritized,

groups will then discuss and choose which 12 survivors will be

thrown overboard to certain death.

5. When all groups have decided, indicate on a transparency listing

every survivor (see transparency master), which survivors each

group has decided will be thrown overboard. You may want each

group to rank from 1 to 12 the order in which survivors would be

thrown overboard.

D. Processing the exercise

1. Discuss the importance of criteria to effective group decision making.

2. Ask students how the decision should have been made and why. Emphasize the

importance of group discussion to effective decision making. Should the captain

have decided to pitch survivors overboard without any discussion or

from the new liver, she justified the d

much room in the lifeboats and a bun Santa

Cruz Sentinel, 11-15-96, p. A1).

ABANDON SHIP

The British film Abandon Ship is a dramatic depiction of a true story. Shortly

after World War II, the luxury ocean liner S.S. Crescent Star struck a floating

mine in the south Atlantic and sunk within seven minutes. There were more

than 1,000 passengers killed in the immediate sinking of the liner, with only 37

survivors. There were no lifeboats launched because the ship sank too rapidly.

Some of the crew and passengers, however, were able to board a small 18-foot

This small boat was designed to hold

only nine people, with maybe a maximum of fourteen people.

Situation You will need to know the following information to evaluate the

challenge confronting the survivors:

The boat is holding 17 people and an additional 9 survivors are hanging

onto the sides of the boat.

The boat has an internal rowing mechanism that will allow the survivors to row the

boat.

DECISIONS TO BE MADE BY THE GROUPS

I. Choose 12 survivors who will be pitched overboard and fed to the sharks.

A. List criteria (standards) for making choices BEFORE any decisions are

made concerning who will live and who will die.

B. Once the group has achieved a consensus regarding the 12

unfortunates, rank these 12 in the order of their departure from the boat

(1st = most expendable; 2nd = next most expendable, etc.). Be prepared

to justify the rankings in terms of your criteria.

II. Discuss the decision-making process that should have been used. Choose

from the options listed below that are also discussed in Chapter Seven of the

textbook.

A. Designated leader/authority (Captain Holmes) without any participation

from the group members affected by the decision.

and Major Barrington (or some other composition of committee

members)

Justify your choice of decision-making methods.

overboard, and the method he uses to

consultation with anyone.

B. In Mixed Company lists five standards for ethical group communication.

They are: respect, honesty, fairness, choice, and responsibility. Was Captain

these five standards? Discuss.

a better ethical choice?

2. Would you have made the same choice as the Captain or would you

have chosen another option (e.g., ride out the storm and hope for the

best; give all group members an opportunity to influence the final

decision; women and children remain, men go overboard)?

C. Should Captain Alec have been prosecuted and convicted of murder for

what he did? Justify your answer. Would Captain Alec have been guilty

of manslaughter in your judgment if

by trying to ride out the storm with all survivors hanging onto the boat?

WORKSHEETS

It is now the second day of e are 25 survivors left,

including the dog. There is no sign of a rescue ship and there is a real

possibility that the sinking of the S. S. Crescent Star is unknown to the outside

world. Therefore, it is likely that the survivors must row to the African coast for any

chance of survival. There is a storm brewing and the overloaded shore

boat could sink at any time. There are too many passengers.

You must select TWELVE (12) survivors to set adrift (the dog may count as one

survivor). It is certain death for those left in the cold waters of the South Atlantic. What

criteria will you use to make this life-and-death decision?

List your criteria below in order of importance. These criteria should be listed BEFORE

you make your decisions regarding who lives and who dies. Do NOT discuss individual

survivors until your criteria list has been completed.

CRITERIA:

1. __________________________________________________

2. __________________________________________________

3. __________________________________________________

4. __________________________________________________

5. __________________________________________________

6. __________________________________________________

7. __________________________________________________

LIST OF SURVIVORS ON THE SECOND DAY

ip and given command after the death

of the captain. Has never commanded a ship. Single, but has a romantic

s the only gun. Approximate age: 42

Approximate age: 40.

Once a famous opera singer, but

now retired. Widow, with grown children. Her children sent her on world

Has two broken wrists. Married,

with children. Very concerned about his own welfare; not much concerned

e ship. Commanded everything

from a squad to a division, but is now retired from the Army. Divorced.

Pompous and arrogant. Disagreeable person. Able-bodied. Approximate

age: 60.

Has a serious cut on her arm that

h. Single. Approximate age: 30.

Called a racketeer by one of the

other passengers. Has a large switchblade knife. Able-bodied. Married, with

children. Approximate age: 42.

small in size. Single. Age: 18.

rge poodle, weighing about 70 pounds.

CHOOSE 12 UNFORTUNATES WHO WILL BE THROWN OVERBOARD.

EXPLAIN WHY THEY WERE CHOSEN BASED ON CRITERIA USED

NAMES REASONS

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Place check mark by each survivor chosen to die. (Transparency Master)

GROUPS: I II III IV V

1. Alec Holmes

2. Julie White

3. Mack McKinley

4. Sam

5. Cookie

6. Joe

7. Digger

8. Dorothy Newston

9. Merrick

10. Sparks

11. Sully Daniel

12. Audrey Clark

13. Major General Barrington

14. Ruth Spencer

15. Michael Ferrone

16. George Killgor

17. Mrs. Killgor

18. Peter Killgor

19. Professor Daniel Kane

20. Edith Middleton

21. John Haden

22. Willie Hawkins

23. Mario Pasqualle

24. Mickey Storks

25. Dog