More handpicked essays just for you.
Addressing cultural diversity in the classrooms
Addressing cultural diversity in the classrooms
Addressing cultural diversity in the classrooms
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Imagine someone being accused of something horrible where both sides, innocent or guilty, have equal evidence and no one can decide what to believe. This is what the book Doubt by John Patrick Shanley is about. Doubt is about a religious school called St. Nicholas. In this school there is a new African American student with little to no friends, and is completely alone. The father of the school, Father Flynn, takes the young African American boy named Donald under his wing. One of the sisters is suspicious about the relationship between Flynn and Donald, and that is what leaves the reader with doubt. It is up for the reader to decide if the Father is guilty of innocent for possibly have relations with the young boy. In my opinion, I find that …show more content…
Father Flynn is guilty. After I read and watched the film Doubt, I find Father Flynn to be guilty. The first reason is that he always keeps his nails clean, “Look at my nails. They’re long, I like them a little long, but look how clean they are” (Shanley 16). Countless times in the play, it talks about his nails and how clean they are, and if it weren’t significant, it wouldn’t talk about them so much. I think he keeps them long because Father Flynn is like a predator and the kids are his prey. Secondly, he’s guilty is because he took Donald to the rectory, alone. This is a significant event because when asked about it, Father Flynn became more defensive and said, “Happened? Nothing happened. I had a talk with the boy. It was a private matter” (Shanley 32). It is a little odd that Flynn said it was a private matter because Donald is only a 12-year-old boy. There are a lot of strange and convincing evidence that Father Flynn may have done something to Donald. In addition, there is even more evidence that Father Flynn may have had relations with the young boy. After Donald came back from the rectory, Sister James smelt alcohol on his breath, and he also looked like something was bothering him, “There was alcohol on his breath. When he returned from his meeting with you” (Shanley 33). Sister Aloysius has suspicion that Flynn may have given the wine to the boy, and when someone walked in, only Donald was caught and not Father Flynn. Also, I have my opinion on Father Flynn being guilty because of how some of the other students act around him. Towards the end of the play, Sister Aloysius talks about the time where she saw Flynn place his hand on a boy, and the boy immediately pulled his hand away in fright, and disgust, “On the first day of the school year, I saw you touch William London’s wrist. And I saw him pull away” (Shanley 52). Some of the children at St. Nicholas are scared of Father Flynn, and that only fuels the argument that Flynn is guilty. Lastly, there is also a lot of evidence proving that Father Flynn is also innocent.
Donald Muller is a new student at St. Nicholas and is an outcast because of it. Not only that, but he is also an African American living during the 60’s, which was a racial time period in our nations history. Others may think that Father Flynn was just trying to take Donald under his wing, because he was an outcast, “There were tears. He begged not to be removed from the altar boys. And I took pity on him. I told him if no one else found out, I would let him stay on” (Shanley 34). Flynn cared about Donald and his well-being and was willing to stretch the rules for him as long as no one found out about him drinking the altar wine, but eventually someone did, so he was removed. Not only did Father Flynn take Donald under his wing, but also some may say that Donald even trusts Father Flynn. While reading the book, it is hard to see how Donald trusts Flynn, but when watching the movie, Donald always seems to cheer up whenever he sees Flynn, “I stopped speaking to him for fear of it being misunderstood. Isn’t that a shame? I actually avoided him the other day when I might’ve passed him in the hall. He doesn’t understand why” (Shaley 39). Father is avoiding Donald, and he almost seems sad that he is avoiding him. Even with all this evidence of Father Flynn really just being “kind” to the boy, I still think that he is guilty. I think that because he is an outcast, it was an easier target for Flynn. A young African American boy who has no friends to tell what happened, sounds like an easy target to me. My opinion on the rectory scene is that Father Flynn gave the young boy the wine and someone came in, so Flynn fled the scene and only Donald was caught and Father made of the story about Muller drinking the wine to cover up his own
tracks. In conclusion, with all the evidence that I have seen, after reading the book and watching the movie, I still think that Father Flynn is guilty and had an inappropriate relationship with Donald Muller. A man, who keeps his nails long, takes a young boy to the rectory alone, Donald coming back with alcohol on his breath, and because of how the other students acted around him, sounds like a guilty man to me. The Play is never directly tells you if he is guilty and gives you equal evidence on both sides. I guess it is up for the reader to figure out the mystery for them selves.
I recently read a book called Monster by Walter Dean Myers, in which a sixteen year-old boy named Steve Harmon was arrested for being accused of shooting a drugstore owner, and watched a documentary titled Murder on a Sunday Morning about a fifteen year-old Brenton Butler being charged with murdering a woman at a motel. I found that the book and the documentary had many similarities and differences. I thought this because both cases are about a young African-American boy who is in custody for something that they did not do. Both police investigations didn't go thoroughly and just rushed through to arrest the boys immediately and are centered around a white defense attorney who tries to convince the jury that the male teen did not committed the crime by giving out evidence.
The play is pretty clear that Father Flynn is innocent. Father Brendan Flynn is a very conservative priest, who wants to help the students. He also tried to make changes such that student would use ball pen and sing frosty the snowman. In the other hand, Sister Aloysius is a progressive nun, who does not like the school to change. Father Flynn caught Donald drinking wine, and to save the boy from getting discharged as an altar boy, he made a promise to Donald to not to tell anyone. Sister Aloysius drove Father Flynn to the point that he had to tell the truth about Donald drinking the altar wine. The church will now have to discharge Donald as an altar boy, which Father Flynn had been trying to avoid this entire time. Before leaving Sister Aloysius’s office, Father Flynn tells her that, “He is displeased with her handling of the situation.”(Shanley 35)
A reputation can be so well established that if one person in power does a wrongdoing people will not believe it. For example when Mrs. Muller says, “Let me ask you something. You honestly think that priest gave Donald that wine to drink?” (47). Donald’s mother is questioning sister Aloysius because she does not believe Father Flynn would do something like that. He has a reputation of being a great priest and his reputation is better than Sister Aloysius’. Mrs. Muller states, “You’re not going against no man in a robe and win, Sister. He’s got the position.” (47). Just by Father Flynn being a male he has a higher reputation than a nun, which he knows and can accumulate for his actions. In the hierarchy of the Church, the head male priest is the most dominant. Therefore, nobody questions what he is doing; he has a reputation of being this influential priest who gives great sermons. He knows that he has the power to do what he wants and has his fellow Monsignor and other men in the ...
It is difficult to make the decision if Father Flynn is innocent or guilty. In John Patrick Shanley’s Doubt; a parable, he eclipses the truth very well. The scenes about the toy, the camping trip and the undershirt cause much confusion; causing the audience to go back and forth in their minds and doubt Father Flynn. Law says that people are innocent until proven guilty although; realistically, everyone knows that people are guilty until proven innocent. It is very possible that Father Fynn is only helping Donald, because he is less fortunate than the other students at his school; and it is also very possible that he is hurting the child by molesting him. The decision is left to the audience as the jury.
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
However, in Twelve Angry Men, Juror Eight defies prejudices in his own beliefs, and eventually in the final verdict. When the eleven jurors are asking the Eighth Juror why he voted “not guilty”, he responds with “It’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here. I mean, we can’t decide in five minutes. Suppose we’re wrong?” (12). Even if the Eighth Juror may think that the boy might have actually killed his father, doesn’t mean he did just because the boy grew up in the slums and is a tough kid. No matter where the boy is from or what he looks like, his life is on the line. Thus, don’t jump to conclusions too quickly. Later on, when the jurors are talking about the knife that the boy had, Juror Eight was “saying it’s possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife.” (22). Just because a violent boy who grew up in a violent family had a knife, doesn’t necessarily mean he is guilty of murder. Thus, things may not always be the way they seem, so don’t judge a book by its
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
His slapstick films seem to be wackier than some of his early teen films, but Sixteen Candles and the Breakfast Club had their fair share of wacky moments. Many of John Hughes's later comedic films have their fair share of heartfelt moments, as well. Blending farcical elements with more dramatic elements seems to be another consistent feature of most John Hughes films, whether he was the writer, director, producer, or all three at once.
The prosecuting attorney holds the burden of proof and has to prove that Aaron is completely guilty and does not exist third party or other possible explanation of the murder. If the jury has a reasonable doubt about it, Vail and his client Aaron will have won the case. Therefore, Vail’s goal is to place an element of reasonable doubt on the
Around 20 years ago from our frame in time, from within the town of Robin Hills was an event of tragedy involving gruesome deaths of children. No matter the point in time the importance of the event that transpired has never changed. The film is based on the murders titled, Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hills, focuses on the lives of the families before, during and after trials. Not only does it focuses on the deaths of the children, the film focusses on an internal theme that explores the riddle; “Is justice still served when given or taken from the undeserved?” Whether the accused teenagers are proven innocent or proven guilty that is what the directors were on the prowl for. Berlinger and Sinofsky documented every aspect they could to convey an honest and unbiased judgement into the trial. The methods the directors used is connected with how the audience will possibly judge the trial. Possibly meaning that the directors, no matter how hard they tried to be unbiased, grew emotionally attached and actually agreed at some point that the teenagers who committed the murders were actually either innocent or guilty. By the ways the filmmakers edited their film, on certain scenes suggest they had their opinions. As they
...der further than what we have in front of us. We want to impose our opinion on everything. We want to relate to it in a way that can only be done through out imagination. So, due to this, when we are not given the flexibility, then the context no longer becomes entertaining. The viewers do not want to be told how to think. Given these points, if they are influenced to believe that Sister Aloysius is a cruel individual like the movie portrays, then at the end of the movie and book when Sister Aloysius says, “ I have doubts! I have such doubts!” they will take that as a confession from her, and be further lead to believe that the accusations against Father Flynn are false. I think John Patrick Shanley chooses specific diction to create a conflict that has no precise resolution,he wanted the reader get lost in story and enter into their own story manifested within.
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
Father Flynn tells Sister Aloysius, “Even if you feel certainty, it is an emotion and not a fact.” I think he means that without concrete evidence, you cannot rely on your emotions for the truth. In Father Flynn’s sermon he discusses doubt and truth. He says, “Doubt can be a bond as powerful and sustaining as certainty.” Sister Aloysius treats her doubt as the truth, and ignores any uncertainty she has. Throughout the story, Father Flynn denies and wrong doing and cites that there is no evidence of any misconduct. Doubt becomes battle with two viewpoints. When questions are asked, they are answered with more questions, leading to more
Pennington and Hastie (1992) found that when jurors were presented with the evidence in a chronological manner, they were much more likely to find the defendant guilty than when this evidence was given in a discrepant and non-structured way. This led them to propose a story model which is believed to be widely used by jurors to make sure they evaluated all the evidence in a strategic and sensible way. The model consists of creating a narrative based on a careful evaluation of all the collected evidence to assure that the jurors fully comprehend the case. This appears like a fairly reliable system to assess a crime. So why so much controversy? Yet again we should remind ourselves that jurors are untrained laypeople and as laypeople they do not always use the most systematic way of approaching incoming information. This might for example occur when the presented information is out of the jurors’ expertise and they are having hard time making estimations about the extent of a crime; in that case they are more likely to rely on heuristic processing (Bornstein & Greene, 2011). This is quite a rapid and automatic process enabling people to use shortcuts that help them to understand the issue better. When using this technique, jurors are more likely to attend to the peripheral cues, such as the confidence of an eyewitness, credibility of an expert,
Tristram Shandy begins the narration of his life by rewinding to the moment of his conception, which his mother disrupted with a question: “Pray, my dear, have you not forgot to wind up the clock?” (Sterne 6). In this introduction, Tristram ironically reveals the main anxiety of the family: that time will, metaphorically, stop for them. Just as Tristram traces his misfortunes to his nearly derailed conception, the rest of the Shandys suffer from fear that their family legacy will not continue, especially considering that their one surviving son, Tristram, has squandered his prime years for potential courtship and fatherhood on meticulously recording the events of his childhood. The cornerstones of the novel, including Tristram’s conception, his Uncle Toby’s groin injury in the war, Tristram’s brother’s death, and Tristram’s accidental circumcision all reveal literal and metaphorical castration anxieties that are deeply tied to the family’s thinning bloodline. Laurence Sterne’s Tristram Shandy documents the fear of thinning legacy and declining