B) Spend a few minutes individually thinking of further arguments you will use to back up your own opinion on the usefulness and types of punishment.
c) Now discuss the issue with other members of the small group using the arguments you have prepared. Do your best to support those who share a similar point of view and try to dissuade those who don't agree with you. (Use cliches of persuasion, agreement/disagreement).
6. In arguments involving suggestions, partial agreement and disagreement certain functional phrases of attack and response1 are used. The tactics of attack may be tentative or direct. a) As yoy read the extracts below pay attention to the difference between the two:
— Isn't it just possible that new evidence will throw quite a different light on the case? - — Might it not be true that the boy didn’t mean any harm. (tentative) — Surely you'd admit that the offender has violated the basic principle. (direct) — Don't you think that the prosecutor has built his case on the erroneous assumption? (direct) — All of these things are racial slurs, aren't they? (direct) b) Complete each of the following conversations below by supplementing the appropriate tactics of attack of the first speaker: 1. … Possibly (may be so) I'd agree with you to a certain extent. 2. … I see your point. 3.... That may well be. 4. … I see what you mean, but...
c) As you read the text below note down the functional phrases of attack and response:
Juror 1: It's a tough decision to make, isn't it? Don't you think that it's an awful responsibility to have the future of that lad in our hands? I feel so sorry for him, he's not yet 21. Juror 2: Come off it! You can't be serious! He didn't just take the money, he also beat up the old lady. He's guilty, it's written all over his face. It's our social duty to keep our streets safe at night. Juror 3: I agree with your last statement, but surely you admit the evidence for convicting this young man is rather flimsy? Wouldn't you say that we need something more definite? __________
1 See Appendix (p. 289).
Juror 2: Ideally that's quite true, but there weren't any other witnesses. As I see it he had the motive, he has no alibi and the old lady recognized him... Juror 1: Hang on a minute. I'd like to point out that she only thought she recognized him. Isn't it just possible that a scared old lady of 76 could have been mistaken? Juror 2: Fair enough, but it's all we have to go on. All the fingers seem to point at him. Juror 3: That may well be, but strong suspicion isn't enough to put someone away in prison. If you ask me, even if he is guilty, the shock of arrest and coming to trial will be enough to stop him making the same mistake again. Juror 4: I see what you mean, but the punishment's not our problem. We're here only to decide whether he's guilty or not. And the point is he was carrying a knife when the police picked him up, wasn't he?
D) Act out the situation similar to the one given above. Use various tactics of attack and response. 7. In a students' debating club the motion is"punks, heavy metal fans, rockers, nostalglsts, green hippies and others should be prosecuted by law.";
A) Make a list of arguments for and against any legal sanctions against such groups of young people. b) Define your own attitudes to these groups. Do you think they pose a threat to public order? C) Participate in the discussion. Use the technique of defending your views by being forceful in presenting your arguments. Use the functional phrases of attack and response. The success of a lawyer, especially a prosecutor, among other things depends on a skill in making a capital speech, based in some cases on the ability to attack, to force bis opinion on the Jury. Act as an attorney for the state in an imaginary case and prove at least one piece of evidence against the accused. Exercise your ability to ask the right kind of question, to be forceful in proving your point in attacking the counterarguments. 9. Panel discussion:
Suppose the fundamentals of a new criminal code of Russia are being worked out. Six experts are invited to a panel discussion to your University. They are Dr. Kelina (LL.D.), a leading researcher with the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Dr. Orlov (LL.D.), the same Institute,
Dr. Stem (LLJD.), professor of the Cincinnati University, Mr D. Fokin, a people's assessor, Mr S. Panin, a people's judge and a criminal reporter for the national newspaper.
|
