Christina

Crucible Final Reflection

LT.5CCSS.ELALITERACY.RL.910.2
Determineacentralideaofatextandanalyzeitsdevelopmentoverthecourseofthetext,
includinghowitemergesandisshapedandrefinedbyspecificdetailsprovideanobjective
summaryofthetext.

LT6CCSS.ELALITERACY.W.910.1.B
Developclaim(s)andcounterclaimsfairly,supplyingevidenceforeachwhilepointingoutthe
strengthsandlimitationsofbothinamannerthatanticipatestheaudience'sknowledgelevel
andconcerns.

LT7CCSS.ELALITERACY.RI.910.9
AnalyzeseminalU.S.documentsofhistoricalandliterarysignificance

After the trial: Write a brief summary reflecting on the following: (minimum of 3
sentences each)
How prepared were you for your role in the mock trial?
What did you learn from the trial experience?
Who do you think did the best job presenting their case, the defense or
prosecution, and why?
What could be done better the next time?
What can we learn from this case regarding human nature and freedom?

Final reflections:
Write a report reflecting on 3 of the 4 points listed below (1
page typed, 12 font, Times New Roman, double spaced, each paragraph 5-7
sentences in length)
Does our judicial system assure a fair trial for the accused?
Are some parts of the trial more important than others?
Would you trust a jury of your peers to determine your guilt or innocence?
Explore your reactions to playing your role, as well as your reaction to the
outcome of the mock trial.

Conclusion (one paragraph)

You have explored and experienced how the
religious, social, and political atmosphere of 1692 led to the Salem Witch Trials.
Do you think the Salem Witch Trials could happen today?

Summary
I was very prepared for the trial. I studied Mary Warrens character until I had a
grasp on her behavior. She tends to lie and change what she says in order to not be
convicted herself.
You could definitely tell that these cases and their verdicts were based solely on
Witness testimony and unproved accusations. I also learned that there is a lot of back and
forth between the Prosecution and Defense. They repeatedly used the same witnesses and
the witnesses were up for a while due to cross-examinations.
Overall, I believe that the Prosecution did better than the Defense. The Prosecution
was able to back up information and they thoroughly examined each witness. They were
completely ready for questioning and cross-examining.
The Defense tended to repeat the same questions despite already having the answers to
them. It also seemed like the Judges completely disregarded the Jurys verdict but
nothing can really be done about that because the final verdict is always up to the judges.
I think that the Prosecution and Defense should talk to each other so they dont bring the
same people up constantly. They should also talk to the people they are calling up so that
the witness actually has a clue to what they are going to say.
We have all learned that it is definitely human nature to try and save yourself from
harm. People will lie and accuse to avoid being put on the the stand themselves. Even people
that are very close to you can make the quick decision of turning on you for their own
benefit. Most people dont want to die so if they think that their decision will save them
then they will do it.

Final Reflections
(one page down)
Conclusion
I do not believe that the Salem trials could happen today. Even when people could not
be thoroughly proven guilty they got a guilty verdict. Back in the day, most verdicts were
made by biased judges. If there is even one instance where you are called a witch then
they automatically believe the accuser. In todays court, judges arent allowed to be
biased. They have to judge based on real factual evidence. If some young person in the
court randomly made an accusation, it would be looked into to see if its true or false. If it
happens to be false then the accusation wont just be looked over like in 1692, it would be
investigated as to what the persons reasoning was and they would most likely get in
trouble for it.

Final Reflection
uringatrial,themostimportantthingisfortheprosecutionanddefensetopersuadethe
D

JudgeandtheJurytoseetheirsideoftheargument.Everyverdictisbasedoffofevidenceand
accuratewitnesstestimony.Theevidenceisgenerallyinvestigatedandexaminedtomakesure
thatitisrealandnotforgedforthepurposeofprovokingacertainverdict.Generally,the
evidencemustbespecifictothecasethatisonhand.Ifanyevidence,witnesstestimony,or
questionaskedbytheprosecution/defenseisirrelevanttothecase,itwillmostlikelybe
disregardedandorobjectedupon.Sometimes,itwontmatterwhatthepersonontrialsaysor
whatthethejurythinks.Somewitnesstestimoniesmaynotevenmatteriftheyarelessimportant
thanawitnesswhohadafirsthandencounterwiththedefendant.Intheend,theverdictisupto
thejudge.
Dependingontheaccusation,Imayormaynotwantajuryofmypeers.Ingeneral,ajuryof

peerswillbebiasedbasedonthereputationyouhavebuiltupwiththem.Ifyouremeanand
constantlyactlikeajerkthantheymaybemoreinclinedtovoteyouguiltydespitewhatyou
havedone.Itthesamewayifyouarethenicestpersonintheworldtoyourpeersthantheymay
bemoreinclinedtohelpyou.However,theproblemwithajuryofpeersandfamilyisthatif
someonecommittedacrime,theoneswholovethemwillwanttohelpoutandsavetheminany
waytheycan.Inmycase,ImjustnotsureifIwouldtrustmyfamilyandpeersbecausethey
mayvotebasedontheevidencedespitehowtheyalreadyfeelaboutme.Thiscanalsodestroy
therelationshipswithyourfamilyandfriends.Again,evenifthejuryisbiased,itisuptothe
judgetodeterminewhetherornotyouareguilty.Yourfreedomdependsontheskillofyour

lawyer.Ifyourdefenseattorneyknowsexactlywhattheyaredoing,thentheywillbeprepared
enoughtogiveyouashotatinnocencedespitewhatthejurymaybelieve.
WhileplayingtheroleofMaryWarren(Witness),Ifounditnerverackingtobequestioned.
SinceMaryscharacterhasavarietyofdifferentbehaviors,itwasdifficulttoactlikeher.Mary
Warrentendstoswitchwhereshestandsinatrial.Sheliesforherownpersonalgainbutshealso
tellsthetruthwhensheknowsshecantgetoutofaspecificquestion.Maryalwayshastowatch
whatshesaysbecauseifshemakesthewrongmoveshecouldbeconvictedherself.While
standingandbeingquestioned,IalmostfeltlikeIwasbeingjudgedbyeveryoneinthecourt
(eventhoughitwasntarealtrial).Iimaginethatthesefeelingsmustbeintensifiedduringareal
courtcase.Ialsothinkthatthepeopleplayingthejudgeswerereallyactinglikeitwas1692and
theygaveallguiltyverdictsdespitethefactthattherewasnorealevidenceofwitchcraft.
However,therewasnoevidenceofinnocenceeither.