SPEECH 101

You walk into a courtroom. All you hear is sammy killed maddy. Immediately your thought is, Sammy is guilty of murder, she took maddys life. What if you then learn it was an act of self-defence or an act of war? Do you feel the same? Should Sammy still be conviced as guilty? This develops the question is killing ever justifiable? 

Justice Wargrave, from Agatha Criste’s novel, “And then there were none” consistently portrays his twisted beliefs about justice and murder. His interesting concepts make me curious about whether there are cases of justified killing? To contradict Wargraves beliefs that killing someone is always an unjust act I have proposed two different perspectives in which outline that yes, in fact, killing can be justified. The first perspective is under the idea of self-defence, followed by the second perspective of killing under the commands of war. 

We own our own lives. We protect the things we own. Therefore it makes sense we should be able to protect ourselves. 

As humans, we all have the right to protect ourselves in danger. Taken from New Zealand’s Law Commission, it states in 31 SECTION 48 of the Crimes Act 1961 that, “The defence recognises that people have a right to defend themselves against violence or threats of violence, so long as the force used is no more than is reasonable for that purpose”

When our lives are at risk, we are not expected to just stand there and let someone hurt us. 

Self-defence comes as a right to being human and alive. There are cases around the world in which to prevent harm happening to themselves a person has had to act. Often the defence is not intended to kill someone rather it is required for the attacker to stop or leave. If you felt threatened or in danger of someone hurting you, you would try stop them wouldn’t you? 

In a particular case occurring in Miami, Greyston Garcia chased and stabbed a burglar which resulted in the death of the theif. This was an act of self-defence as previously the intruder had swung a bag of stolen car radios at Greyston, which although sounds peculiar, a medical examiner confirmed that it could’ve caused serious harm. This case is one of many examples in which killing another person is justified under self-defence to protect your own life and your belongings. 

In life, there are situations where you can simply do nothing but fight back. These are cases in which killing can be justified because sometimes these cases result in the death of the other person, often not through intent and more of an unfortunate uncontrollable situation. 

Self-defence, clearly being one reason why killing can be justifiable is still not the only case in which it can be. My next perspective outlines how war is a justifiable act of killing another person. 

We praise our soldiers, we thank them for their bravery, we are grateful for their hard work. They killed so we could live. So would you really call them murderers?

War by definition is “a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.” Killing another human in the act of war to fight for your nation can be considered a justifiable reason to kill another person. 

Although war involves death and killing which can be considered murder, if you look at the purpose of war it is almost in order to gain justice for your country by fighting for what you believe in.

Unjustifiable murder is an act of hate, intent and passion. G.K. Chesterton, a respected journalist, explains how this is not the same for soldiers of war. He states, “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”  

Killing in war is regarding as a job with purpose. For soldiers what comes with this job is an understanding of why they are killing. The deaths that have to occur within war are what result in development and progress in the world. Lt Col Pete Kilner, a serving officer in the US Army who has done tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, states, “it’s very important that we understand why, and under what conditions it’s the morally right thing to do to kill another human being.” This shows that under the correct contexts of war, killing can be morally justified. 

Soldiers do not kill because they want to or because they want to kill a specific person, they fight for what they stand for. Often it was not a choice for soldiers. Men were sent to war and if you refused you were frowned upon. Not only do soldiers take lives but they risk their own, with a high chance of being killed themselves. Being asked to fight and kill other man in the position of war does not mean these soldiers are guilty of murder. 

Killing enemy soldiers in a declared war on the battlefield is legal by law. There are laws within war known as the “Geneva Conventions” which outline what actions are illegal in war. But taking someone’s life on the battlefield of a declared war is not considered the illegal act of murder. Therefore killing in during war is justifiable. 

These are two perspectives in which taking a life is justifiable. Still, it makes me wonder whether anyone ever has the right to take a human life and who has the right to decide whether it is a justified reason.

Intent law – Still need opening sentence for my perspective

So how do we define between what is justifiable and what is not? Is the only dictator of this the law? 

In my perspective, the law try’s to set boundaries and opinions around what is justifiable and how a person should be punished for what they have done. I do not believe the governmental laws and rules are always correct in dictating if killing someone is justifiable. 

The two perspectives I have given outline two situations in which the law justifies killing but what I have learnt from life is that not all cases of death are exactly the same. So how can the law just decide whether it is justified or not?

I believe the justification comes only from your own opinion. The law does all it can to create justice and decide for us what is justifiable. But in the end, it is our own morals and the information that we have been given in which we decide if killing someone is ever justifiable. 

There are situations in this world that are uncontrollable. Accidents happen. People die. Sometimes these things are just out of our control. So why should the law be allowed to prosecute a person for something they had no control over. Even if someone has killed another person by accident and it is justified, they are still written off with a title of man-slaughter, have to go through a tormenting court process and even have to commit to a punishment of community service at it’s least. All because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I believe the guilt upon these people if enough as it is without the law trying to dictate justice of the situation. For cases like these, the person has no intent to kill and often don’t deserve the punishment that can come with it.

To truly understand whether killing someone is justifiable I believe it involves looking deeper into context. The intent is what should shape the punishment rather than the action itself. The difference between murder and cases of manslaughter or self-defence is the intent. With every case, there is a new form of intent and each case must be treated with caution to uncover the intent and decide if the intent of the situation is justifiable.

You walk into a courtroom. All you hear is Maddy killed Sammy. After hearing these perspectives including my own. It is now clear to see that what we must ask ourselves before we make the assumption of whether killing is justifiable, what the context was? What the intent of the situation was? There is no yes or no to this question of “is killing ever justifiable” It changes for each case and even then it cannot always be answered because there are always people of different opinions and different perspectives. The law cannot always be left to make an estimated judgement of whether something is justifiable so we must make our own based of the context of intent.


Dyers Eve – Metallica – book report

‘Dyers Eve’ written and performed by Metallica, depicts the injustice of the world James Hetfield one of the songwriters was brought into and grew up in. The lyrics touch on the concept of the discrimination of children. It connects to children who have parents who should not be qualified for parenting. The authority that a parent can hold over you, control your every move or every word, just because they brought you into this world. The lyrics state, “Curator, Dictator. Always censoring my every move. Children are seen by not heard.” I see the true injustice in this. How parental authority tears children of their individuality. No one, not even a parent, should have the right to take away someone’s voice. 

Yet if we look back to past centuries this is a rule many parents lived by. Children should be seen and not heard was the normal. Parents were often very strict and children were beaten for misbehaving. Children were sent out to work and it’s only in the last 100 years that significant changes have been made. 

I feel incredibly lucky to have parents that support me and encourage me to think for myself. They guide me in my decision making but don’t shut me down for having my own voice and thoughts. 

This makes me questions humans altogether and enrages me for how can a child grow if they are torn from the ability to speak. It is not fair for anyone to take someone’s right to speak whether they are family or not. I know for a fact if I had been stripped of my freedom to talk as a child I would not be the person I am today. The song’s words “ you have clipped my wings before I have learned to fly” this can be seen as nothing more simple than an injustice to one’s rights as a human being. As we grow and develop as humans this unequal authority that a parent can have over a child should be carefully watched in order to reduce the injustice. 

I believe this should be monitored as the people you grow up with as your role models such as your parents are seen to shape the final result of who you turn out to be.  Kids can turn out very similar to their parents. This song makes me understand how easy it is for you as an individual to accept an opinion or belief of your parents. For it is all you are brought up to know. Their beliefs on wrongs and right, in other words, their beliefs on justice is often forced onto you unintentionally by just growing around them. The song represents this in the lyric, “Pushed onto me what’s wrong or right.” This interlinks into justice as it teaches us why prejudice and stereotypes carry on through generations and how discrimination still seems to appear in our daily lives no matter how hard we argue for it to leave. It comes from the family trees of people knowing no different. Parents pass onto their kids who pass onto their kids and so on and so forth. Because from a young age each person has never been told any different this trend continues. So when I hear someone arguing about a point that is completely biased and incorrect, I now know that this is not often because of necessarily who they are (or should’ve become) it is of who they have become due to their upbringing. And it makes me wonder, do all my opinions of what is right or wrong just come from what my parents have told me all these years. Why were blacks and white kept segregated from each other for so many years in South Africa, parents told their children thats how it should be and so it was – again ‘pushed onto me what’s right or wrong”  “always censoring my every move” – shutting down questioning why or challenging for change. 

The true injustice of this is that you may never truly get to become an individual. Your mindset, beliefs and opinions can be projected onto you from a young age based on the beliefs of your parents. Through understanding this I have learnt that as humans sometimes we have to break free from following the line of beliefs before us and create our own individual opinions. 

The song moves on to another stage where Helfied describes how the loss of his parents affected him in life. Having had them controlling him so much as a young person when they die he feels unprepared to survive in the world on his own. 

“I’m in hell without you

Cannot cope without you

Shocked at the world that I see

Innocent victim – rescue me”

Having my own parents to ask for help and guidance when I need it is something that I probably take for granted. I can’t really imagine them not being there or what it would be like to suddenly be left without them. 

Many artists use music as a means to express emotions, to tell their story, share with the world heartache. “ Dear Mother Dear Father Time has frozen still, what’s left to be,  Hear nothing, say nothing” are really heartfelt words. 

Many of us listen to music that have messages that we can connect to in some way. There are many challenges in life, conflict with family, breaking up with a boy or girlfriend, trauma grief and this is expressed in songs and people relate to these songs from their own experiences.  The things that happen to us make us who we are. The things that happened to Helfield affected him for his whole life and how he wrote his songs and what he wrote about. 

The Hate U Give – book report

“The Hate U Give” directed by George Tillman Jr, is a heartbreaking yet empowering story of a young girl named Starr and her experiences as she becomes the witness to her friend’s death (Khalil). From these traumatic experiences sprout the decisive task of how Starr goes about to obtain justice or not.

What I thought from this film is that Starr was surprisingly hesitant to be a voice to gain justice and speak up for Khalil. Personally, if it were me and one of my friends I would immediately stand for what is right without hesitating. It made me think a lot about how lucky I am to feel able to do this. How different a place and life I live in compared to Khali.  How so many things that I take for granted, simply do not exist in Khali’s life. 

I see the struggles of her split identities between schools, and from that, I can see how the power of judgement can really affect someone’s view of themselves. Seeing Starr break through this barrier presents to me how empowering the need for justice is. For something to be left unfair will sit in the back your mind until you can’t hold it in any more and you explode with the need for justice. This can be seen in the film when Starr lets go of her fear and reveals herself as the witness by yelling out to the public. She states, “We will not stop until the world sees it too.” This empowerment can be seen through the increase in low angles showing Starr’s strength of her voice in this scene where she speaks up to the crowd. The story inspires me to be brave and stand up for I believe in, for things that are important to me and not to be silent when things are unfair. “What’s the point of having a voice if you are going to be silent in those moments you shouldn’t be?” Starr says. 

Starr is brave and her character inspires others to speak out and stand up for the truth. No one should ever be restricted from speaking the truth. Seeing a girl such as Starr after many years of learning to stay quiet and not speak up for her own safety to stand up in the end against all fear and shout her truth is empowering. It is empowering to anyone, of any race, of any skin colour, of any gender, that equality and justice can be found when you speak up. I find the words her father gives her are the most impacting, “When you are ready to talk you talk. Don’t ever let nobody make you be quiet.” Teaching us that your voice is your own and you should never step down from your beliefs. An example of this in today’s current media is a 16-year-old girl Greta Thunberg. She has stood up for her beliefs of climate change to make a difference in this world. She has advocated her beliefs through the power of her voice and she has impacted our society in doing so. I find these representations of the power of using your voice encouraging to speak up and stand out in this world. Even though as teenagers we are young, our opinions still deserve the right to be heard because I believe a younger, fresh perspective and voice is what the world needs. 

This film deals with important racial issues that America and other countries continue to struggle with every day. Even the point where we learn that the cop has never struck out like this before and how it impacts on his life. The fact that he has been influenced by racial prejudice that he has brought up around. The reason for his actions stereotypes of black people causing him fear that caused him to shoot a young black man. I can’t imagine what it must be like living like Khali does in her life. I consider myself lucky to not have to deal with the racial issues that she lives with as part of her daily life. She says “When I was 12, my parents had two talks with me. One was the usual birds and bees, the other was about what to do if a cop stopped me” in the movie this refers to how her dad teaches her to put her hands on the dashboard of the car and not move if pulled over by a policeman. In America, African Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be shot than white people (study by Frank Edwards). The study showed that 1 in 1000 black boys will be killed by police in their lifetime. For white boys and men, the rate is 39 out of 100,000. This has also raised the question, is this because more black people commit crimes or do we just assume that based on taught racial bias? 

This is supported in the film when Starrs uncle, who is a cop, shares how he reacts in a situation. “As a cop, there are so many dangers going through your head”, and he outlines to us how if someone reaches into a car to grab something after you have asked them not to move, how easy it is to let yourself jump to conclusions. He states, “A lot goes through a cop’s mind when they pull someone over. … We run their licence and instruct them not to move. But if they open a door, or reach through an open window, they’re probably going for a weapon. So if I think I see a gun, I don’t hesitate. I shoot.” 

He then contradicts himself when she questions him about if they were white and he says “I’d say put your hands up,” rather than shoot. Coming from another cop we see that the police system is not the problem, it is not the odd person, it is the racial stereotypes that may have once occurred so now is believed forever. This is what truly must be fixed. The way people are taught to think and the way we are brought up living of the past history far too much.

So in regards to the cop who shot the boy, is it that his racist thought is what he may have grown up with and that he is not the real problem? It is the beliefs that are still being projected onto people from birth? This isn’t me believing he isn’t guilty, but what I think the film portrayed is that the true injustice in the world is the racial prejudice based on skin colour.

 This shows how unjust the world is when it comes to the racial outlooks and from this movie I have truly seen this as a real problem. The unfairness based on simply your skin colour makes such little sense for if you were to look a little deeper every person is the same no matter their race or the colour of their skin. The true message I think comes from this film is that no one should be told where they stand in this world based on the colour of their skin. 

Murder On The Orient Express – book report

The film ‘Murder on the Orient Express’, directed by Kenneth Branagh is based on Agatha Criste’s novel ‘Murder on the Orient Express.’ It is an enticing murder mystery story in which the overall theme of justice is tightly intertwined into the solving of one man’s death. The story depicts a detective known as “Hercule Poirot” and his hunger for justice as he solves one of the most unusual cases of murder. Only to discover that sometimes serving justice does not always come in the form of uncovering the truth, rather it is through what is truly fair.

Throughout ‘Murder on the Orient Express’ I believe that the idea of justice is tainted in the eyes of the law. Rather than being something the law wants to serve in order to balance all rights and wrongs, instead, it is a job that has been developed into something to just tick off with the answer seems most likely. The film states, “if we leave this to the police, they will choose a culprit, right or wrong, and they will hang him. Most probably Mr Marquez for no other reason than his name is Marquez. Or Dr Arbuthnot for the colour of his skin. You are the only one who can bring justice.” This quote in itself shows that justice has become morphed by opinion, prejudice and stereotypes which is why justice is rarely served by the law. For especially in the era this film was set there was huge racial discrimination and immediate blame went to anyone of another race. In history, we have seen how people were condemned for things just based on preconceived judgements. Killed because of their religion. Accused because of their colour. Witches burnt at the stake, often just woman who had learnt about natural healing methods. 

This is still seen today in society, so from this, I learn that with any opportunity in which I can stop a person being unrightfully accused of something I must not just brush off this chance to make a difference. We must not let the stereotypical ideas determine the conviction, instead, we must focus on facts presented to us and only facts. Hercules focuses on solving a crime based off facts rather than opinion his judgements do not sprout from his prior beliefs in the world and he is set out to solve a crime to prevent injustice for others who could be wrongly convinced. This crime-solving mindset that Hercules presents is inspiring and it teaches me the value of the truth. To not help reveal the truth is to equally commit the crime of wrongly convicting.

The characters in the film who all commit the crime of killing Lenfranco Cassetti, also known as Mr Ratchett in the film, portray a different perspective to the concept of justice and the idea of right and wrong. In a black and white case, we see a murderer as a murderer, they are evil and corrupt, therefore guilty and the bad guy. Yet colour is added to this black and white image as a deeper understanding and knowledge of motive and the past is developed. Justice can not be dictated by the basic act seen, which in this case would be that a man was murdered, it involves an understanding, and truly stepping into the person in question’s shoes. For if we were to accuse anyone who kills another person to be a crazed murderer deserving of punishment, what would happen to all the people classified under manslaughter? 

This is again bringing it back to how we look at something, whether we look at it black and white with little knowledge or whether you investigate to why. For example should a pure accident, which could’ve happened to anyone, with no direct intent be labelled off as an inhumane killer? Poirot in the film, for the first time in his career, we learn, must lie about the truth in order to balance the scales of justice as he learns of each person’s individuals grief and damage in which they have all experienced because of one man. This enforces the concept that true justice is in letting a person free to live the shackles of pain and grief unlocked through the death to a soul who did not deserve to live. Poirot describes the motive as “the benefit is, perhaps to the spirit, an ease of suffering.” Through close-ups of the characters faces, for example, Daisy’s aunt, we can see the first-hand emotional torture expressed in her face. This makes me truly feel for her, and their story and it changes my opinion on the victim (the man murdered) to think that even though he was killed is he really the victim. We understand that these people have suffered more than they deserved, they are not killers and the conviction of them as killers would not be universally fair. By understanding their hurt, guilt and torture we see that the person who should be guilty of any crime is the man who was murdered. The death of the bad guy (Cassetti) in itself was an act of justice for it gave balance to the world and to their lives, for now, they have hope of living again without fear. What I like about this film is that it is not just the typical one person murders another person.

 I find the fact that the murder was a group revenge murder interesting, as with each persons’ story connected to the death of the little girl Dasiy I can see how one action can have such chain reactions in this world. It is intriguing to see just how easily one thing can tear many peoples lives apart and even more fascinating how revenge and one death can build their lives back up again. I believe that this murder although will give the characters a sense of relief and revenge I do not believe much of the grieving trauma will actually leave and that they murdered Rachett in the hope it would end their grief. Poiret says “ there are no killers here, only people who deserve a chance to heal”

Overall the concept of justice is repeatedly enforced throughout this film to help us see that we must not let the sexist, racist or any form of prejudice dictate what justice is and only the facts of a crime should determine that. Along with the idea that no crime can be solved by staring at it blankly and only going surface deep for true meaning and answers comes from what caused the crime from within which will be the only way to dictate what is just or not. 

The story was partly inspired by the real-life case ‘The Lindberg Case”. A young boy was kidnapped and held to ransom. The ransom was paid but the child was never returned and eventually his body was found. 

The story also makes people think about their own child’s safety. How they would feel if this were to happen to them. It provokes them to think about how they would like to get revenge. In most cultures, the law prevents them from taking justice into their own hands. Or for most people, they just wouldn’t be able to commit a murder. We are taught two wrongs don’t make a right. I am glad that I don’t live in a society where revenge killings are commonplace or legal. As we can see from this story it would also be very easy to get it wrong and make a mistake. 

Speech structure

THE HOOK

  • All about creating an immediate impact on your audience. The hook is the first thing. that is said. There are multiple ways to go about doing this.
  • Anecdote – this is a short story, usually humorous or interesting, about a real incident or person. This helps connect to your audience by setting the stage and outlining the theme of your speech through a narrative.
  • Controversial statment – This is a statement designed to elicit a strong emotional response from your audience. this is done by saying something contrary to what would be considered appropriate.
  • Audience conversation – using conversational language that puts your audience at ease and encourages them to join in the conversation. Using slang, incorporating them into the speech to make the audience feel included. eg we, our – group conversation.
  • Audience command – this is about instructing your audience to do something. This can be powerful and when used to highlight a theme. It makes your audience active participants in the speech, not just passive listeners.
  • Quotations – Starting your speech off with a quote can add authority right away. this will help your audience accept that you are informed on the topic you are about to speak on.
  • Rhetorical question – this is a question that does not need an answer. This can be extremely confronting for your audience. It will put them in a position where they must think about how they would answer the question. This is best used to highlight the theme of your speech.

THE OVERVIEW

  • Now you have them hooked, what do you do? THis is where you introduce them to the outline of your speech.
  • Delivering information on the ‘big picture’ is important in this section of your speech. Use the ‘w’ (who, what, when, where, why) questions as a base and build up from there.

“A Study in Scarlet” written by A. Conan Doyle – book report

“A Study in Scarlet” written by A. Conan Doyle 

The book itself was captivating like many murder mystery books and definitely presented clear imagery throughout the text. Along with finding the text easy to follow, the investigation had intriguing cliff hangers and twists that made you want to read more. The book followed a layout in which Sherlocks story was told first and then the reasons behind the crime were told second in part 2. At first, I was confused by this and it took me a while to understand how part 2 was related but once I understood the connection I really enjoyed this layout. It made me fully change my opinion on the killer and it opened my eyes up to the concept about how important the whole story is and not to judge anyone before knowing their past. 

The first half of the text built the idea of revenge to serve justice to those who have done wrong. From the presentation of the word “rache” in the text, meaning revenge in german. We learn how justice is incorporated because the victims, in the eyes of the murderer, had committed an unjust action making them guilty and deserving of death in the killer’s eyes. 

Through many stories, this idea of revenge can come hand in hand with the idea of justice because many people believe that getting revenge is getting justice. I personally would not consider this to be true because revenge is much like fighting fire with fire or similar to the phrase, “two wrongs do not make a right.” Yet peoples connection to the unjust act, in this case, Jefferson Hope losing his loved one, dictates how he sees justice. I learn this from the text because in part one I viewed Jefferson Hope as the bad guy, the guy who had committed the crime of murder and I only saw him in the wrong and not the two victims, but when we are fed background information and are told things from the other side, in part 2 of the book, I find my whole perspective-changing. I felt bad for the character of Jefferson Hope, I developed hate towards the men killed, Dribbler and Strangerson, and I even started to see it much like Jefferson did, that they deserved to die. Therefore showing the power of perspective of justice in such a situation. The book states “what he knew to be justice” showing that one man’s justice varies from the next. If we had lived through these events that Jefferson Hope did then our opinion of what justice is can be easily changed or dictated by hate, anger and grief, which is what all of part 2 develops within the reader through understanding Jefferson’s perspective. This further shows how exposure to these emotions of hate, anger and grief can take over your mind, fuel your revenge for something and completely change your view on the world and the actions you take. Like they did for Jefferson, his life did not continue from that point onwards for his hate was so overpowering that even though he was living he was not moving on, as his head was only focused on getting justice and revenge. For the rest of his life, he thought of nothing else other than killing the two men because in his eyes the world would never be fair until they were dead.

This caused me to reflect on how you must be careful with these emotions and how much you let them take over your mind because if you allow them to they will consume your thoughts like an addiction as it did for Jefferson. “There is no satisfaction in vengeance unless the offender has time to realize who it is that strikes him, and why retribution has come upon him.” – Jefferson Hope. 

It makes me question the system of crime, for did Jefferson Hope really deserve to be made out as a bad guy? When the two men were far worse than him and all he was doing was solving a crime much like a detective would just in his own way. To me, it shows that the system of law is not the only force of justice in this world. Justice is always made out to be something obtained by a judge or given by police officers or detectives but what I learnt from this text is that the law only takes credit for justice and uses it as a way of making the law seem like the good guys. 

Jefferson Hope states in the final pages of the book, “You may consider me to be a murderer, but I hold that I am just as much of an officer of justice as you are.”  After this and looking back into the book I see how in some sense he is correct in saying he is no different. All Jefferson Hope has done is work to gain the justice that was never served. He trusts the universal power that he believes to be justice in many ways, such as giving himself the equal chance of death with the 50/50 chance of taking the wrong pill to prove that his doings of gaining justice were really correct. How would  I feel if I thought justice would never be served unless I took matters into my own hands. If I had no faith in the justice system that we have or so no hope of anything ever being done. Would I be tempted to take matters into my own hands? Luckily I live in a country with a robust legal system and a police force to call when needed. So I feel secure that I have a place to go to if needed, rather than take the law into my own hands. Unfortunately, not all parts of the world are the same in this area. Or within gangs in many parts of the world, it is considered the norm to deal with things themselves and take the law into their own hands. In 2006 58% of deaths in L.A, (newsweek Jan 2007) were gang-related. 

Jefferson accepts his own death as his punishment in order to balance justice in the world. It saddens me because through reading this book you know the whole story and you don’t see Jefferson as a bad guy but in the end, but for him to be made out like that by the law seems unfair because all he was doing was making the world a more fair place again when the law could not. I admit that I  was led to see him as the criminal in part 1. I saw him as the murderer and that any murderer is evil. But like I previously said after reading part 2 it made me realise how important the whole story is. In a modern-day courtroom we have the lawyers for the defendant and the prosecutor. Each is tasked with presenting each side of the story to help with the decision making of the jury. To give the full picture so they can ideally make a decision based on information from both points of view. Holmes would call this ‘the science of deduction”

My perspective was changed and I then felt sorry for Jefferson Hope and in some sense, I too, believed that Dribbler and Stragerson deserved death more than he did. Yet this was not shown to the public eye and Hope was made out to be the bad guy. I believe this can be seen in the real world, how often does the news only tell us what they want us to hear? They don’t want us to know that in any way that murder can be an act of true justice, for that could spread the wrong image. So instead in our world the everyday people who read or watch the news can be fed what the people of higher authority want us to hear or what is perceived as the right message. We see people on TV who are being convicted as drug addicts for example, and we frown because that is the acceptable reaction to hearing such things. We are told they made the wrong decisions in life. But sometimes you look into that person’s background and you find that the reason for their drug usage is they had no other choice, they were born into that and that was all they were taught with little opportunity to know any better. Then with that knowledge, we feel bad, we feel like they shouldn’t be in the wrong because when you know the whole story you see that maybe it isn’t true or they had no choice and were forced to do something. It has made me think about that if we/I want to own an individual opinion it’s important to not always go off what we have been told to believe or what we see on the surface of a situation but we must make our opinions based on what we know for a fact and find out the real background story because it the whole story that shows the real truth and the whole story. As Holmes puts it “There’s the scarlet thread of murder running through the colourless skein of life, and our duty is to unravel it, and isolate it, and expose every inch of it.”

Logos, Ethos

LOGOS

Logos is an appeal to logic

This means the use of statistics, facts and data to reinforce your argument.

Enhance persuasive speech by supplying information the is undeniable. The audience cannot avoid agreeing with you because they are FACTS

The argument becomes hard to rebut because with facts to support your argument it becomes less of an opinion and simply a statement of what is true.

ETHOS

Ethos is an appeal to authority.

This means to address the credibility of a source of information. Using specific terminology related to the topic or quoting a notable figure is a good way to appeal to authority.

By using ethos you are able to enhance your speech by establishing that those with significance in the field agree with your point, thereby showing that you are right.

Using the technical language adds the impression that you have knowledge of the topic.

PATHOS

Pathos is an appeal to emotion

This means to use specific language that stirs emotion in your audience. Figurative language techniques and anecdotes are particularly effective means of this.

Pathos can be extremely powerful when used well, however, a speech built entirely on pathos is rarely successful. Playing off your audience’s emotions will allow them to connect with you but it can also become manipulative if used too often.

Writing portfolio task 2 Creative writing – Penrith Bay

STATEMENT OF INTENT – I have written a piece of creative writing that describes a winter evening at a specific section of Lake Wanaka called Penrith Bay. I am going to develop a description of this scene using language techniques to convey an image in the readers’ mind. Through these descriptive language techniques using sight, sound and structure, I will develop the idea of time passing on a Sunday evening at the lake with the dogs yet winters beauty makes time seems frozen. Along with how a world surrounded by mountains can make you feel trapped but darkness opens all your surroundings. I want to convey the final idea of how beautiful moments are often easily forgotten about when we switch back to the reality of social media and our weekly routine work.

It is winter, evening sets into play over the lake. A painted reflection, icy and motionless, enclosed by snow-blanketed mountains channelling a gentle breeze against speckled rocky shores. Protruding rocks, ageless, weather-beaten and washed, decorate the lake like freckles on a face. A snowglobe for a world, in which time stands still. Nature stripped down to the bone, resting so silently you could assume it was dead. 

Listen. It is the gossiping whispers of naked branches, shivering roots like veins beneath the frozen earth. It is the wind humming to the chorus of the birds, harmonious and homebound the diurnal dance of notes that drift into a mere echo with the breeze. Soft splashing polishes the circumference of the lake, rocking small pebbles back and forth in a rhythmic pattern. 

It is Sunday evening. The beginning to the end of a week that always seems so long, signified by a setting sun. Over in the far corner huddles a family, at their feet glows flickering flames shouting out sparks, lighting up screams of joy. Vibrant giggles of children bounce off the lake like skipping stones of laughter, skimming along a stream of sunlight, from the base of the pointy giant’s silhouettes to the dogs splashing paws and claws. The glassy lake shattering instantly into thousands of concentric circles rippling from beneath furry bellies. Buzzing with excitement. Running. Rushing. Faster. Faster. Crunching pebbles beneath their paws, smoking like dragons with every breath.  From the second of the rumbling truck coughing to a start, they knew where they were going. Cantering like horses along the bays parabolic curve, carved out by the eternal erosion of history. Creepy crawlies scatter as sweaty noses snuffle into the frore grounds, away they run, chased by a slobbering pink wall licking up anything tasty in its path. Ancient eyes tower above the lake, peering over the energetic blur which the dogs present, a mere flicker in the eyes of a mountains life. A bark. A blur. A blink. An instant immediately lost to the forever preserved memory of the prehistoric landscapes. Beyond the borders of the snowglobe sneaks the sun, hiding behind snowy peaks, saying goodnight with one last rush of colour. Acrylic hues of blue, fluorescent purples and pinks drip from clouds, for a moment seeming almost touchable. Within seconds the clouds become faint. Colour drains from their rosy cheeks, washing away like water in a sink with no plug.

Look. It is the last light of day greeting the moon’s beaming smile to the sky. Rigid peaks traced by a silver glow, line the horizon and with the fall of night dissipates the enclosing blue dome to an expanse of darkness. Natures clock sets in over the wildlife, once energetic dogs fall to a routine like an alarm signifying the end to playtime. Their soaked, shaggy coats frost over as temperatures plummet rapidly with the passing day. Slowly the shadows melt away, consumed by creeping darkness chasing the light away. Children of starlight come out to play, flickering with laughter and joy, slowly one by one they take their place in the playground of the gloaming sky. It is the abandoned burning embers left to die, the final glow mirroring glittering eyes of stardust.  

Soon you will find yourself in a place unrecognisable. A whole new world, yet you are looking into the same space as before. Surroundings that continue endlessly like a desert of darkness, letting you only see a few feet ahead. Eventually finding yourself back where you began. Panting labradors in the boot, the chuffing warm heaters blowing in your face, defrosting your body chasing away the shivers and goosebumps. The frozen world is suddenly disregarded into the night as your glowing face becomes defined by a hypnotising blue light between your hands that consumes your every thought. A once in a lifetime experience, never to occur again, only recorded down in history with a simple text answer of, “Yes mum, I have walked the dogs!” And with that, the moment passes and the world seems to press play. Reality has kicked in as Monday morning planning creeps back into your mind. 




Editing

Capital letters- start of every sentence and for every proper noun

Full stops- at the end of every sentence

Commas- Used to separate clauses and to list items

Apostrophes- Shows ownership or missing letters

EDITING CHECKLIST

  • Use the 5 sense?
  • Used appropriate detail?
  • Used commas to mark pauses?
  • Used capital letters?
  • Checked your apostrophes?
  • Checked there/their/they’re
  • Used multiple sentence types?
  • Uparagraphs appropriately?
  • Kept your writing consistent?

STRANGE TOWN

resource image

It was an ordinary night, but this was no ordinary town. This was Strange Town.

During the day, everything was quiet. It came alive at night.

Whispers grew as the crescent moon rose above the peaks of the buildings. Looking down onto the townies the moon signals the beginning to their night. Creatures of every shape, size and description come rolling out of their front doors.

Under the feet of the locals drifted a gentle river, it clawed at the edges of the grassy mounds which they called their home. A home, only lit up by the twinkling stars that scattered the sky like fairy lights in a child’s bedroom. Beyond the expanse of night lay a world these creatures dare not go. A world of sunlight and endless eyesight to the lands that surround. Freaks they would be called if they were to come out from the shadows.

So here they stay in their strange town, filled with strange creatures and strange thoughts.