Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


English assesment

The justice game analysis

justin sultana

on 5 June 2011

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of English assesment

The Justice Game Overview The Justice Game published in 1998 was not written to portray Geoffrey Robertson as a good Samaritan or expose the truth, instead to create awareness regarding the need for a bill of rights. The novel uses a number of preceding cases to epitomize his cause including both the trials of Oz and Michael X on death row. Robertson states 'this book is an attempt to explain why justice matters... the minimum which the law must offer is the possibility of success to those up against it" The Justice Game is relevant to this module as the cases demonstrate the differences between justice and the law whilst showing the conflicting perspective of individuals on the matter, this is seen in the following chapters. The trials of Oz Overview This case was based around the 28th edition of 'Oz' magazine known as the 'Schoolkids' edition. Its founders Richard Neville, Richard Sharp and Martin Sharp included an image of Rupert Bear (an English cartoon character) with an erection. Michael X on death row Overview The crux of this chapter is about Michael X who was a British Jamaican who tried to emulate the actions of the black activists in America and after becoming very well known and gaining supporters like John Lennon and Muhammad Ali he moved to Jamaica to further the cause in his own country. He did not have the same success as he did in Britain and after failing to have political impact he planned the murder of a British female enthusiast and then murdered a man himself. He was sentenced to death although Geoffrey Robertson travels to Jamaica and appeals to the British Privy Council to save his life. Unfortunately the Jamaican authorities execute him in secret to avoid his life being saved, he died in Trinidad's royal gaol in May 1975. The underlying motive of Robertson is to challenge the authority's right to execute as the waiting process is a form of torture and undue cruelty, after a number of cases and a twenty year battle he is successful and saves many others from execution. History with an Agenda
(related text) hhvjhvjdhfjvdfffddjdhfksdkhfurhfr Geoffrey Robertson worked as an assistant to John Mortimer, a QC willing to take on the case. They were able to convince the jury through the use of a number of experts that no amount of exposure to indecent material could corrupt somebody, after having a medical and psychiatric report they were finally granted bail only just avoiding jail. The trials of Oz Representation of Conflicting Perspectives Geoffrey Robertson permeates the readers mind showing the relationship between representation and meaning through the use of articulate language. He presents key figures varying perspectives and demonstrates the values that individuals share differ based on social determinants. This is seen when. Robertson attacks Judge Michael Argyle from the commencement of the court, "his judgeship was a consolation for not being successful as a Tory MP... against what he saw as the evils of the permissive society" This shows that Argyles context causes bias and is influential in the case. Robertson then goes on to describe the judge as "conservative" and "out of touch" which was made evident in his misunderstanding of "right on" as "write on", his unfamiliarity of the famous musical "Hair" as well as his mispronunciation of "cunnilingus". Robertson emphasises this to show the jury of Argyles naivety towards prevailing ideals in society therefore has a negative view of the authors. This depicts conflicting perspectives between Geoffrey Robertson (represented the youth of society) who believes the case itself is ludicrous describing the magazine as a "harmless coffee table magazine for the revolution that would never happen" and the authors as "honest young men". Judge Argyle (represents the more conservative people in society) who saw the magazine as offensive and vulgar believing that the authors of this derogatory magazine should be penalised. Robertson also relies on tone and sarcasm to dismiss any credibility of the treasury counsel, Brian Leary who saw the image of Rupert Bear not as art but insolence. Leary cleverly positions Oz as an opponent of the state for their impertinence against the values of ordinary people. Robertson uses tone to depict the authors of the magazine as David against Goliath reiterating there oppression by the legal system. "One may be tempted to feel that the prosecution is like some nervous public official who, when a child puts out a tongue at him in the street, calls out the army" The simile coupled with a hyperbole illustrates Robertson's view on the case which is supported by his witness Jim Anderson "I thought it was extraordinary, even brilliant" although Leary's perspective is obviously contrary stating "MAKING RUPERT BEAR FUCK?... Extraordinary it may be, but whatever it is, it’s not genius is it?” The individual's perspective is represented through the use of literary techniques to convey their point. In the trials of Oz Geoffrey Robertson describes Richard Neville as having the "boarding school mannerisms of Prince Charles" This illustrates Neville more as a British Aristocrat then an Australian trying to challenge society's values. Robertson does this to prove that they had no real intellectual stance on anything. He then goes on to explain Richard Neville's final speech as foolish and being dismissed by the judge clearing his throat. "Judge Argyles views were unconsciously signalled to the jury through tone of voice and body language which did not show up on the transcript for the Court of Appeal" This exemplifies how ones perspective can be influential to the outcomes of a court. Robertson proceeds to say "Then their heads [the jurors] swivelled in unison in the opposite direction" the descriptive language used here with 'in unison' illustrates a unanimous disapproval of what Neville said. Robertson maintained that the magazine editors were lacking the substance to pose a real threat to society although Judge Argyle through his actions demonstrates otherwise. Michael X Representation of Conflicting Perspectives Geoffrey Robertson portrays moral outrage in the reader's eyes, as a human rights lawyer he tries to remove capital punishment by arguing it is of a 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Differing perspectives are seen when Robertson starts by showing the human feelings of Michael X by saying "The man that the state of Trinidad planned to kill was not the same man who with angry calculation kill another" This shows the use of language to twist the truth, in actual fact it is the same man that killed Joe Skerritt but Robertson uses the expression 'not the same man' to portray Michael X's personality and attitudes have changed. This is an effective way of humanising someone people see as an evil monster, ironically Robertson never once states that he believes that Michael X was innocent. He goes on and refers to Michael X as one of 'the living dead' to describe the procedure of death row in Trinidad. This oxymoron shows the lifelessness of the people on death row and their harsh treatment. Robertson does this to confront the reader and persuade them that the death penalty is an inhumane practice. Robertson uses grotesque and emotive language to depict capital punishment as barbaric and a form of torture. He states the condemned are "hanged by the neck until dead" and proceeds to use other horrific language such as "The breaking of the cervical vertebrae" and "everyone on death row, including the man who was to fall through it could hear the trap open" This torment is an unethical and immoral punishment that Jamaican citizens should be protected from. The use of emotive language is to allow the reader to empathise with Michael X "dressed in a clean white gown soon to be stained with his bodily fluids" again showing the ghastly nature of the procedure. Robertson makes a clear reference to Justice as a game, the law protected the citizens from 'cruel and unusual' punishments so he begins arguing that capital punishment is 'cruel and unusual' although the law also accepted capital punishment as a consequence to crime therefore he altered his argument saying that a prolonged period awaiting execution was cruel and unusual. Through the use of descriptive language he portrays the officials as heartless racists. "the death penalty is inflicted unequally, arbitrarily and especially on the poor and the black... behind the truculence and dishonesty of state officials lies a grim determination to kill." This is done to show Robertson's perspective of the corrupt legal system By Justin Sultana Representation in Text: Conflicting Perspectives History with an agenda by Geoff Gallop is a feature article from 'The Australian' magazine that exemplifies conflicting perspectives of historians throughout the world, this is relative to the course as revisionist historians deal with topical issues of Australian history such as Eureka's significance in the evolution of Australian democracy and the adverse affects of the white settlers on the indigenous population and of events such as the depression. "Different interpretations of past events will inevitably feed the perspectives and prejudices of those engaged in the battles of today." This identifies an issue in history from the point off view of historians rather than providing an objective recount of histroy "we bring our own intellectual and political baggage or.. point of view on the direction of society." Gallop then goes on to use a range of rhetorical questions to emphasise the fact that we must consider the perspective of the historian when reading their work. "Is [history] solely about the greatest happiness for the greatest number? A story that deals with change or resents change? A story about outcomes or processes?" This literary technique is used to emphasise the ambiguity of why history was written. Gallop puts forward the idea that maybe history was written to please the people or even persuade the population to deal with change in society. This demonstrates how history can be seen from the historian's perspective to show a particular view rather than what actually happened. Literary techniques Through the use of evidence Geoff Gallop tries to strengthen his position on the subjective view of historians. He uses Clarke, a credible Australian historian who wrote a book in 1954 called 'Rewriting Australian History ' where he identifies the flaws in the writing of Australian history, to accentuate his argument and show the reader that the historians perspective alters their view of the truth. "Clark has taken up the study of our past as his main intellectual endeavour... and urges us to think more deeply about the purpose of history" The use of evidence/ a historian is a technique used to justify his argument and to portray a deep understanding of the topic. This module requires students to study the relationship between events, personalities and situations. This module also explores the relationship between representation (the way ideas are portrayed through texts) and meaning (the connection between text and responder) coupled with the conflicting perspectives between many people. This is evident throughout both the Justice Game by Geoffrey Robertson and History with an agenda by Geoff Gallop. Both novels use situations where conflicting perspectives play instrumental roles to prove their point. Both the Justice Game by Geoffrey Robertson and History with an Agenda by Geoff Gallop use a range of literary techniques to represent the conflicitng perspectives that are seen in society today. This representation allows the reader to empathise with those involved and explore the reasons why the differing perspectives come about.
Full transcript