Procedure and 10-Day Lesson Plan

(Note: The day before you intro­duce this unit to stu­dents, tell them they will need a sep­a­rate three ring note­book for the next two week unit, in which they will keep their notes, assign­ments, and research mate­ri­als. This will be their Death Penalty Notebook.)

To begin the unit, ask your stu­dents to divide a piece of paper into two sec­tions and have them write the fol­low­ing ques­tions at the top of each section:

1. What do you know about the death penalty?
2. What would you like to know about the death penalty?
   

(Give them approx­i­mate­ly 15 min­utes to com­plete this task.)

After they have com­plet­ed this task, ask them to draw a line at the bot­tom of each sec­tion and date it. As they progress through the unit, they may revis­it this activ­i­ty — adding new infor­ma­tion, answer­ing the ques­tions they ini­tial­ly may have had, adding new ques­tions, etc. (Have them revis­it this activ­i­ty on day 4, before they start their group research.)

Divide the board in half and write down their col­lec­tive respons­es and ques­tions. Consider using a trans­paren­cy, so you can keep these reac­tions for lat­er. If you use the board, copy down the respons­es. This will pro­vide you with a pre-assess­ment about what they know. Encourage them to take notes — this will be the sec­ond entry in their know/​want to know notes.

After this task is com­plet­ed, dis­cuss what stu­dents wrote and clar­i­fy issues as nec­es­sary, but try to avoid answer­ing the ques­tions to which they may find answers on the web site.

Explain the pur­pos­es of the unit and the plans for the next two weeks. (See Themes and Rationale above for direction).

For home­work, have the stu­dents write an ini­tial posi­tion essay.

Requirements:

1. State your position/​views about the death penalty.
2. Provide at least three rea­sons for your posi­tion. (Estimated length of this assign­ment: 3 pages)

Using the teacher overview site descrip­tions, briefly go over the entire site as a class.

Allow them to explore and become famil­iar with the site. (15 min­utes or so)

Have the stu­dents com­plete the ​“Would you be cho­sen to serve on a jury” sur­vey and inde­pen­dent­ly take notes on their reac­tions and ques­tions. Take some time to dis­cuss who may be eli­gi­ble based on their beliefs about the death penal­ty and who is not from the infor­ma­tion pro­vid­ed on the site.

Explain that whether or not they would be eli­gi­ble, dur­ing the next class peri­od every­one will review and decide an actual case.

Divide the class into 5 groups (see Appendix for group­ing strate­gies and responsibilities).

Explain the indi­vid­ual and col­lec­tive roles that the group mem­bers will play.

Review the major points from the pre­vi­ous day’s dis­cus­sion regarding eligibility.

Hand out print­ed copies of the cas­es (with­out the final out­comes) to all group mem­bers — one case per group. The cas­es on the Web site include infor­ma­tion about the crime, the defend­ent, the vic­tim, aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stances, and mit­i­gat­ing cir­cum­stances. The final out­comes of the cas­es do not appear on the stu­dent ver­sion of the Web site. Teachers can find the final out­comes at the end of the Teacher Overview for the courtroom cases.

Since only four cas­es are pro­vid­ed, two groups will receive the same case. Make sure that the dupli­cate case is not case study #4 (the McMillian case) because that case is an exam­ple of what turns out to be con­vic­tion of some­one inno­cent of the crime. Because this is rare, it’s bet­ter to dupli­cate one of the oth­er three cases.

Explain that dif­fer­ences of opin­ion are a part of every­day life and that as a cit­i­zen group they rep­re­sent a cross-sec­tion of the pub­lic. In their groups have each stu­dent review their case and share their posi­tions. Have the speak­er or writer take notes that will lat­er be pre­sent­ed to the class. They must first dis­cuss their opin­ions about the case and then ren­der a deci­sion. Use a secret bal­lot col­lect­ed by the facil­i­ta­tor. Have them dis­cuss their deci­sion, briefly, and pre­pare their short pre­sen­ta­tion. Explain that in some states, in the advent of a dead­lock, or hung-jury, the case would have to be retried with a dif­fer­ent jury to reach a unan­i­mous deci­sion. However, in the inter­est of time the case will remain deadlocked.

Have each group briefly share with the class the main points of their case and the decisions/​reasons that they reached. A gen­er­al class dis­cus­sion will cer­tain­ly emerge. At the end of the peri­od, pass out print­ed copies of the final out­comes of each case to the class.

Homework: A brief paper (2 pages) on what hap­pened in their groups; con­flicts, nego­ti­a­tions, com­pro­mis­es with regard to their deci­sion. (Some poten­tial lead­ing ques­tions for this assign­ment might be: How did your per­son­al opin­ions con­flict with or sup­port those of oth­er group mem­bers (In oth­er words, how did you sit­u­ate your voice)? How did you feel dif­fer­ences of opin­ion were expressed and han­dled? What were the dif­fer­ences in opin­ion and how were they supported/​not supported?)

Simulation Introduction

(Make it clear to the stu­dents that the sim­u­la­tion con­cerns issues of ethics and justice.)

To begin the sim­u­la­tion, first dis­cuss your state’s posi­tion with regard to cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. Note that opin­ions and laws have changed over time. (You may draw on the History Section of the site to make this point.) If your state does not cur­rent­ly have the death penal­ty, it may intro­duce new leg­is­la­tion to enact it. On the oth­er hand, if your state does have the death penal­ty, it may intro­duce new leg­is­la­tion to impose a mora­to­ri­um, or abol­ish it. The point to make here is that informed pub­lic opin­ion has the pow­er to change leg­is­la­tion. In this sim­u­la­tion, stu­dents will be intro­duced to this process.

Introduce the sim­u­la­tion by read­ing the following:

Your state leg­is­la­ture is recon­sid­er­ing its posi­tion on cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. In the spir­it of the demo­c­ra­t­ic exper­i­ment in the United States, leg­is­la­tors are call­ing for cit­i­zen input in ren­der­ing a deci­sion. Legislators are hold­ing an open leg­isla­tive hear­ing on the death penal­ty. Your group, moti­vat­ed by var­i­ous polit­i­cal and social rea­sons assigned below, has cho­sen to attend this hear­ing. As cit­i­zens con­cerned with the issues of fair­ness and jus­tice, you have the respon­si­bil­i­ty to act as the voice for your com­mu­ni­ty and its posi­tion. This Web site will pro­vide a sub­stan­tial amount of infor­ma­tion with regard to the death penal­ty, but you are also encour­aged to draw on cur­rent events and pub­li­ca­tions con­cern­ing the issue.

Note: This research will cul­mi­nate in a role-play toward the end of the unit.
After the research is com­plete, each group will deter­mine how they will make their case in a role-play sce­nario based on their research. Students should keep this in mind as they do their research.

• 5 prin­ci­pal groups (A sixth is added for a larg­er class size) will exam­ine 4 propo­si­tions drawn from the argu­ment and rebut­tal sec­tion of the site. (One group will serve as leg­is­la­tors who make a final deci­sion on whether or not the death penal­ty should be sup­port­ed, abol­ished, or whether a mora­to­ri­um should be imposed, with appro­pri­ate sup­port for their decision.)
• Select a propo­si­tion for each group (drawn out of a hat). The roles and propo­si­tions for each group are below. These should be print­ed out and giv­en to the group facil­i­ta­tor. Grading rubrics for this activ­i­ty are in this Appendix. These rubrics should also be avail­able to the group facilitator.
• Note: Although stu­dents are giv­en spe­cif­ic propo­si­tions to inves­ti­gate and a spe­cif­ic role to play, they are not lim­it­ed to these posi­tions in gen­er­al class dis­cus­sions. Students should be encour­aged to pass through the inquiry process: begin­ning with assess­ing what they cur­rent­ly know, learn­ing more about the death penal­ty through the sim­u­la­tion and the Web site, and then re-exam­in­ing their views giv­en their inves­ti­ga­tions and the new knowl­edge they acquire.

You are mem­bers of the law enforce­ment com­mu­ni­ty — police offi­cers, detec­tives, pros­e­cu­tors, etc. You are pri­mar­i­ly con­cerned with pre­vent­ing crime. If crim­i­nals are left on the streets, your jobs will be tougher, your task is to research the following proposition: 

Proposition: The Death Penalty pre­vents future murders.

You should read over all of the infor­ma­tion giv­en on both sides of the issue, includ­ing expert tes­ti­mo­ny and any oth­er sec­tions of the Web site that might be use­ful. As peo­ple charged with enforc­ing the law and pre­vent­ing crime, you should decide which argu­ments are most per­sua­sive to you. You should be pre­pared to argue this at the leg­isla­tive hear­ing when it con­venes. As a group, you should pre­pare a writ­ten state­ment of beliefs to present to the leg­isla­tive hear­ing and a visu­al prod­uct to illus­trate your points (either poster board or PowerPoint).

You rep­re­sent the fam­i­lies of the vic­tims in the case stud­ies you read. One of your loved ones was killed in that case. You need to bring some res­o­lu­tion to this ter­ri­ble tragedy. Do you believe that the accused must be killed to make up for your loss or for jus­tice to be served (a life for a life) or is it suf­fi­cient to lock the per­son up for life? Your task is to research the proposition:

A just soci­ety requires the death penal­ty for the tak­ing of a life.

You should read over all of the infor­ma­tion giv­en on both sides of the issue, includ­ing expert tes­ti­mo­ny and any oth­er sec­tions of the Web site that might be use­ful. As peo­ple who have lost a loved one in a vio­lent crime, you should decide which argu­ments are most per­sua­sive to you. You should be pre­pared to argue this at the leg­isla­tive hear­ing when it con­venes. As a group, you should pre­pare a writ­ten state­ment of beliefs to present to the leg­isla­tive hear­ing and a visu­al prod­uct to illus­trate your points (either poster board or PowerPoint).

You rep­re­sent the fam­i­lies of the peo­ple accused of the crimes in the case stud­ies that you read. You do not know whether they are guilty or inno­cent. All you know is that a mem­ber of your fam­i­ly is accused of a ter­ri­ble crime and faces the loss of his/​her life because of it. Your task is to research the following proposition:

The risk of exe­cut­ing the inno­cent pre­cludes the use of the death penalty.

You should read over all of the infor­ma­tion giv­en on both sides of the issue, includ­ing expert tes­ti­mo­ny and any oth­er sec­tions of the Web site that might be use­ful. As fam­i­ly mem­bers of an indi­vid­ual who may face the death penal­ty, you should decide which argu­ments are most per­sua­sive to you. You should be pre­pared to argue this at the leg­isla­tive hear­ing when it con­venes. As a group, you should pre­pare a writ­ten state­ment of beliefs to present to the leg­isla­tive hear­ing and a visu­al prod­uct to illus­trate your points (either poster board or PowerPoint).

You rep­re­sent a civ­il rights orga­ni­za­tion that advo­cates equal jus­tice for all peo­ple, with­out regard to race. You are against dis­crim­i­na­tion and arbi­trari­ness in the jus­tice sys­tem. If your group col­lec­tive­ly advo­cates the death penal­ty, how might it be applied more fair­ly with regard to race? If your group does not advo­cate the death penal­ty and views it as being applied unfair­ly, what racial issues can you find to sup­port your posi­tion? Your task is to research the following proposition:

The death penal­ty is applied unfair­ly and should not be used.

You should read over all of the infor­ma­tion giv­en on both sides of the issue, includ­ing expert tes­ti­mo­ny and any oth­er sec­tions of the Web site that might be use­ful. As a group that advo­cates equal jus­tice for all peo­ple, you should decide which argu­ments are most per­sua­sive to you. You should be pre­pared to argue this at the leg­isla­tive hear­ing when it con­venes. As a group, you should pre­pare a writ­ten state­ment of beliefs to present to the leg­isla­tive hear­ing and a visu­al prod­uct to illus­trate your points (either poster board or PowerPoint).

You are a group that advo­cates basic human rights for all peo­ple, espe­cial­ly juve­niles. You are con­cerned with how young peo­ple are affect­ed by the jus­tice sys­tem. Are juve­niles treat­ed fair­ly when the death penal­ty is admin­is­tered? Consider this ques­tion care­ful­ly and then select one of the fol­low­ing propo­si­tions to inves­ti­gate, giv­en your group’s focus:

The death penal­ty pre­vents future murders. 

A just soci­ety requires the death penal­ty for the tak­ing of a life. 

The death penal­ty is applied unfair­ly and should not be used.

You should read over all of the infor­ma­tion giv­en on both sides of the pro­pos­al your group has select­ed, includ­ing expert tes­ti­mo­ny and any oth­er sec­tions of the Web site that might be use­ful.
As peo­ple who want to see jus­tice for Americaâs youth, you should decide which argu­ments are most per­sua­sive to you. You should be pre­pared to argue this at the leg­isla­tive hear­ing when it con­venes. As a group, you should pre­pare a writ­ten state­ment of beliefs to present to the leg­isla­tive hear­ing and a visu­al prod­uct to illus­trate your points (either poster board or PowerPoint).

You are the mem­bers of the leg­is­la­ture in your state. As rep­re­sen­ta­tives of both indi­vid­ual cit­i­zens and of the state as a whole, your job is to enact leg­is­la­tion that rep­re­sents the best over­all approach to cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in your state. While the oth­er groups are research­ing spe­cif­ic areas, your group should inves­ti­gate all of the fol­low­ing argu­ments on the Web Site:

Deterrence, Retribution, Innocence, Arbitrariness and Discrimination, and any oth­er sec­tions of the Web site that might be useful. 

Make sure you are aware of bothsides of each of these argu­ments. When the groups make their pre­sen­ta­tions at the leg­isla­tive hear­ing, you should be ready to ask ques­tions. You should make up your mind how you will vote after lis­ten­ing to all of the argu­ments. (Remember that you will have to sup­port your final answer. It is cer­tain that some peo­ple will dis­agree with you, so be pre­pared to jus­ti­fy your position).

Before this research begins and after the groups have received their roles and propo­si­tions, revis­it their know/​want to know notes. Consider revis­it­ing the know/​want to know activ­i­ty dur­ing the research process. This pro­vides an excel­lent time for you to eval­u­ate the per­for­mance of your groups/​facilitators, con­tributes to their ongo­ing think­ing regard­ing this issue, and helps you iden­ti­fy emergent themes.

Unlimited access­es to the com­put­er lab. As a teacher you should mon­i­tor the sites the stu­dents are access­ing and the activ­i­ties in which they are involved. Utilize the know/​want to know to guide their inquiry.

Meet briefly with the facil­i­ta­tors to remind them that tomor­row they will be mak­ing their pre­sen­ta­tions. Also remind them that they rep­re­sent var­i­ous con­stituen­cies and have a vest­ed inter­est in the out­come. Remind them also of the require­ments stat­ed on the rubrics. It is impor­tant for the stu­dents to know that a good pre­sen­ta­tion flows well, is well thought-out, match­es the visu­al aid pro­vid­ed, and has some emo­tion­al invest­ment. Allow them this time to pre­pare, since there will be no prepa­ra­tion time on Day 8. Consider explain­ing how a leg­isla­tive hearing works.

Arrange the room so that there is a large table at the front (if no table is avail­able, arrange the desks so your leg­is­la­tors face the room) and the desks sit in a semi-cir­cle fac­ing the front. There should be a sep­a­rate place for the pre­sen­ter to stand, as well as a place for the visu­al prod­ucts (either a tele­vi­sion if you are using PowerPoint, or an easel if you are using poster board).
Remind stu­dents that they will all pre­pare their own posi­tion papers when this is over, and that the infor­ma­tion from the pre­sen­ters may help them in prepar­ing their views.

Choose groups ran­dom­ly to go first, sec­ond and so on. Allow each group to make its pre­sen­ta­tion and answer any ques­tions from the leg­isla­tive com­mit­tee. It is impor­tant to note that oth­er groups may want to rebut what the speak­er has said or to ask ques­tions — don’t allow this; how­ev­er, encour­age them to take notes for the gen­er­al discussion/​debriefing on the last day.

After all the speak­ers have pre­sent­ed and giv­en the leg­is­la­tors their writ­ten posi­tion state­ments, have the leg­is­la­tors go to the hall­way or some oth­er con­fer­ence area to delib­er­ate. (Given time con­straints, this may have to take place the fol­low­ing day.) There they should dis­cuss what they have seen and heard, and make a deter­mi­na­tion for your state regard­ing the death penal­ty. While the leg­is­la­tors are delib­er­at­ing, dis­cuss with the stu­dents remain­ing in the room where they stand on the death penal­ty. Should your state enact the death penal­ty? Why or why not? If so, what meth­ods of exe­cu­tion would they want to have? If not, have them revis­it the com­pelling argu­ments against the death penal­ty. There will be fur­ther dis­cus­sion after the leg­is­la­tors announce their findings.

Legislators announce their deci­sion — a debate and dis­cus­sion will emerge. Drawing on what they have learned dur­ing the course of the unit, the sim­u­la­tion, the argu­ments pre­sent­ed and the notes they have tak­en dur­ing the pre­sen­ta­tions, revis­it the themes that have emerged.

Essay exam: Allow for some flex­i­bil­i­ty with regard to this essay so stu­dents can sit­u­ate their own per­son­al posi­tions, reflect on what they have learned, and sup­port their posi­tions with com­pelling argu­ments. It is dif­fi­cult to antic­i­pate a for­mat for this essay, since the speci­fici­ty of the emer­gent issues may dif­fer between class­room con­texts and stu­dent pop­u­la­tions. However, the essay should address two impor­tant themes of the unit: 1) their posi­tion with regard to the death penal­ty through the lens of fair­ness and jus­tice, and 2) the group deci­sion-mak­ing process in deal­ing with a con­tro­ver­sial issue. Assessment should be based on how well stu­dents make and sup­port their positions/​arguments using infor­ma­tion pro­vid­ed on the Web site, as well as the argu­ments made by their peers dur­ing the sim­u­la­tion and class dis­cus­sions. This Appendix con­tains sug­gest­ed grad­ing rubrics for the research reports.

Share opin­ions and group work dynam­ics in deal­ing with a con­tro­ver­sial issue in a demo­c­ra­t­ic fash­ion; dis­cuss issues of fair­ness, jus­tice and the demo­c­ra­t­ic deci­sion-mak­ing process. Much of this will be drawn from what stu­dents have writ­ten on the pre­vi­ous day, the issues that emerged as a result of the sim­u­la­tion, and their expe­ri­ences with work­ing in groups con­cern­ing a con­tro­ver­sial issue. This may also be a time when you may reflect, along with your stu­dents, on the effec­tive­ness of the unit, the Web site, group work, and stu­dent inter­ac­tion. Your com­ments to us are encouraged.