Lord of the Flies: Into (Overhead)

JOURNAL #1

Describe what happened when I left the room…

did students do what they were asked or not? If
they didn’t what did they do?

Did anyone take the treats (be honest—no one

will get in trouble)? Did any one try to, but then
stop? Did others try to stop one or more kids
from sneaking treats? Or… did students
encourage rule-breaking?

If no rule-breaking occurred, explain why.

(cover the part below until after top part has been responded to and discussed, 1B is “follow up”

Journal 1B

Do people follow the rules because it’s the right

thing to do, or because they are afraid to get
caught? Why do you think this is?
 Lord of the Flies: Into
Would You Survive?
Survival Test

Background: You’re lost in the wilderness, stranded atop mountain or helplessly adrift at sea!
(Never mind how you got there, just play the game!) What should you do? Your very survival
depends on how much you know about your present environment and situation.
Directions: Answer the following questions and test your survival IQ.

1. You’re alone in the wild. You have no idea how long it will take for someone to find
you. What is your greatest danger?

a. Starvation and lack of water

b. Panic
c. Attack by wild animals, especially at night

2. Your airliner has crashed in the mountains. You’re one of several survivors. This is
what you do:

a. Climb to the top of the nearest mountain and build a signal fire.
b. Make short trips; a road may be nearby
c. Stay put and wait for rescue.

3. It’s cold and you have no fire. In order to keep warm you would:

a. Remain motionless to conserve energy.

b. Exercise vigorously.
c. Cover your head.

4.The temperature is below zero, but there are clothing and blankets in the crashed
plane. Your best course is to:

a. Bundle up with everything you can find.

b. Avoid perspiring.
c. Keep your feet warm.

5.You suspect that searchers may be in the woods looking for you. You would:

a. Scream several times.

b. Build a fire and make smoke signals.
c. Try to find your way toward the rescue party.

6.A search plane flies overhead. In order to attract a plane’s attention, you:

a. Use the mirror in your compact as a signal

b. Wave your most colorful piece of clothing.
c. Climb to the top of a tree.

7.Which one of these American wild animals should you most worry about meeting?

a. A bobcat
b. A mountain lion
c. A mink
8.You’ve accidentally disturbed a grizzly bear or a female black bear with cubs and it’s
obviously angry. The thing to do is:

a. Faint, or at least pretend to faint.

b. Moving slowly, hide behind a tree.
c. Run as fast as you can.

9.It’s night in the Canadian wilderness. You’re surround by wolves. Your course of
action:

a. Yell at the wolves and they will probably run away.

b. Build a fire to keep them at a distance.
c. Ignore them.

10.You suspect it may be many days before you’re found. Your greatest concern is:

a. Lack of food
b. Lack of water
c. Lack of shelter

11.Your hunger pangs are serious. You must eat something. You:

a. Chew leaves, but don’t swallow them

b. Eat tree bark
c. Catch and eat small snakes and insects.

12.If you’re starving, there’s one tasty wild animal you can capture without traps or
weapons:

a. Cottontail rabbit with young

b. Woodchuck
c. Porcupine

13.Of hazards you may face in the wilderness, you should concern yourself least about:

a. A poisonous snake bite.

b. A sprained ankle
c. Lack of pure drinking water.

14.The mosquitoes are numerous and too hungry for comfort. Your best recourse is to:

a. Use perfume, if you have any, as a repellent.

b. Build a fire and stay in its smoke.
c. Sit very still.

15.Your airliner has crashed in deep snow and the temperature is below zero. The
warmest place you can be is:

a. In the plane’s broken fuselage

b. Under the snow
c. Inside a tent made of seat cushions and parachutes.
16.When snow is on the ground, snow blindness is a danger. You have no sunglasses,
therefore you:

a. Close your eyes frequently as soon as they start hurting.

b. Shade your eyes whenever the sun is shining.
c. Shade your eyes whether there is sunshine or not.

17.A sever electrical storm occurs. Where is the safest place to be?

a. In the open, away from all trees.

b. In a forest, which will also shelter you from the rain.
c. Under the tallest tree, which will bleed off the electrical charge.

18.It’s very cold. Another survivor of the plane crash tells you that you have a white spot
on your nose--frostbite! You:

a. Warm the spot with your hand.

b. Rub it with snow.
c. Cover your face with cloth or fur.

19.You have no water, but the crashed plane has the usual supply of beverages. To
quench your thirst, you should drink:

a. Scotch
b. Beer
c. Soft drinks

20.You know if you walked west you would find a highway, but you haven’t got a
compass. To find your way, you would utilize the knowledge that:

a. Moss grows on the north side of trees.

b. The sun’s shadow is a direction finder.
c. The tops of tall trees point east.

21.A danger in the woods can be a fox or a raccoon with rabies. You can recognize an
infected animal because it:

a. shows no sign of fear

b. howls and whimpers
c. foams at the mouth

22.Your airliner has crashed at sea. You’re in the water waiting to be picked up by a life
raft. Sharks appear! You:

a. Kick them off as they approach.

b. Try not to worry—you know they won’t touch you if you’re not bleeding.
c. Put your head under the water and yell.

23.You’re in a life raft at sea without drinking water and desperately thirsty. You would
drink:

a. Sea water—it’s safe to ingest in moderate quantities.

b. Urine—repulsive thought, but you’ll need it, to replenish body moisture.
 c. The blood of sea birds.

24.Your airliner has been forced down in the burning hot desert. Our best plan it to:

a. Remain in the shade, moving as little as possible.

b. Take off all the clothing you can and breath thorough your mouth.
c. Stay active so perspiration will cool you.

Scoring: Give yourself one point for each correct answer.

o 22-23 points: Splendid! You might consider a career as a wilderness explorer.

o 18-21 points: Resourceful! You can make it on your own.
o 12-17 points: You’re a fair woods person but don’t go on long hikes by yourself.
o 11 or under: Stay in the cafeteria, you may get lost in the hallways.

KEY

Would you Survive?

Your survival IQ
1. (b) Panic is your greatest danger, Keep cool. As Uncas might say, you’re not lost: the
wigwam is lost.

2. ( c) stay with the plane. It’s large and might be spotted by air searchers. Leave it, even
if only for a short trip, and you might not be able to find your way back.

3. ( c) Put on a hat! Improvise something if you don’t have one. Cover your neck and ears
as well. Most loss of body heat is from the bare head and hands.

4. (b) Perspiring can be fatal in extreme cold; you’ll freeze faster. Wear just enough to
keep feeling slightly chilly.

5. (a) Best is to yell three times at five-second intervals. Three is the international distress
signal. The first shout will attract the searcher’s attention; the others will enable him to
determine your location.

6. (a) Signal with the mirror in your compact or any other shiny surface. Hold the reflector
flat toward the plane and tilt it back and forth slightly so the pilot will see it flash.

7. (c ) Mink may make a nice coat, but it’s one of the few wild animals that will attack
unprovoked. A mountain lion will run immediately, as will a bobcat.

8. ( A) Faint. Or play dead. The bear may come up and smell you, but that’s all. If you run,
it will chase you.

9. ( c) Ignore Them! Wolves are not usually aggressive unless rabid, threatened or injured.
So don’t threaten them! And if their rabid, there’s not much you can do. Fire will attract
them.

10. (b) You can survive for weeks without food but only eight days without water. Your body
is 80 percent water. You’re body needs three quarts a day to avoid dehydration.

11. Two correct answers: ( c) East snakes, and insects, if you can; they’re nourishing food.
However, you might find (b) tree bark, more palatable—the white-and-green inner bark
of evergreens, birches and willows.
12. (c ) The porcupine was once called the “woodman’s friend” because it is the only wild
animal a starving woodsman can run down and immobilize with a stick.

13. (a) Poisonous snake bite is statically the least likely outdoor accident.

14. (c ) Ignore your tormentors. Let them bite and don’t scratch if you have the will power
not to. The mosquito injects an anticoagulant in order to suck blood through its tiny
capillary stinger, then takes back most of this substance during its meal. Since the
anticoagulant causes most of the irritation, it’s best not to keep interrupting the
mosquitoes.

15. (b ) Under the snow. Bury yourself in it. The temperature there isn’t much lower than 32
degrees, and the snow blanket acts as an insulator.

16. (c ) You must shield your eyes even when the snow fields are cloudy. Snow-blindness
gives no warning; it occurs about six hours afte5r exposure to intense light. To protect
yourself, make a face mask from a handkerchief or a piece of cloth with two very small
slits you can peek though.

17. Lighting often strikes a tall, isolated object, such as a tree, building or person in an open
field. It also prefers a very high tree in a forest. The safest place is (b) among the short
forest trees growing in the lowest ground.

18. Frostbite means your nose is frozen. By no means rub yourself with snow. Treat the
affected part gently, and (a ) defrost it by holding your cupped hand over it. You’ll know
it’s thawing when it begins hurting.

19. The Scotch will not help your water supply. Soft drinks might sound like the answer, but
according to nutritional authorities, the sugar (sometimes caffeine) they contain will
cause you to burn up energy much to0 fast. (b ) Drink the beer, but drink it sparingly.

20. Moss grows on the north side of trees, but can you tell moss from lichen? (b) Use the
sun’s shadow. Push a foot-long stick vertically into the ground and make a mark at the
tip of its shadow. Wait a half-hour and make another mark at the shadow’s tip. A line
drawn from the second mark to the first will point approximately west.

21. Foaming at the mouth is not a symptom of rabies, but of fits or distemper, and a rabid
animal seldom if ever howls. But (a) if it shows no fear of you, although it certainly has
scented you, then be careful. Don’t attract its attention by moving; avoid it even if you
have to climb a tree.

22. Sharks are unpredictable. Usually the scent of blood is what draws their attention, but
sometimes they’ll attack without it. Occasionally it’s possible to scare them away by
kicking, but skin-divers (who should know) sear by (c ) putting their heads under the
water and yelling.

23. Not savory, but it means survival: ( c) drink the blood of sea birds—they will come down
and peck at a fish line in the water with almost anything shiny on its hook.

24. The idea is to conserve all the body moisture possible, so (a) sit in the shade of the plane
and remain motionless to keep from perspiring, and keep your clothes on. Also: no
unnecessary chatter; breath though the mouth wastes moisture, too.
 Lord of the Flies: Into
The Survival Kit

Situation: There has been a disaster—a horrible devastation of society. There’s only one hope
of survival—head for the mountains to live off the land for the next TWO YEARS. You can get to
the mountains and reach safety, but your future survival depends upon how wisely you pack
supplies and equipment. Since you can take only a limited number of things in addition on the
clothes on your back, you have to choose wisely. Your choices will tell you and your readers a
great deal about your values and your ability to take care of yourself.

Directions: In the columns below are many items. For this assignment, you will be allowed to
choose only TEN ITEMS from the list. Begin to narrow the list by crossing out items you know
you DON’T want to bring. Then, slowly and carefully decide on the items you’ll need and or
want. Then NUMBER those items from MOST important (#1) to LEAST important (#10).

After you’ve chosen your top ten, list them on page 4 of a new comp book and explain IN
DETAIL why you’re bringing this item. (What will you do with it? Does it have more than one
use?)

AM-FM battery powered radio Toothbrush and paste The family dog
Box of 12 candles Hatchet Flashlight
75 foot rope Ball of string Your special medicines
Army blanket Bear trap 5 pound sack of rice
Box of candy Insect repellent 10 packs of chewing gum
Bible Pair of scissors Pair of pliers
Box of bandages Razor Set of wrenches
Screwdriver Notepad and pencil Book of poems
Wristwatch Kerosene heater Bottle of rubbing alcohol
Fold up shovel 5 gallon jug Fishing tackle
Shotgun and shells Carton of smokes Roll of tape
Typewriter Family scrapbook 50 foot chain
Box of matches The Camper’s Handbook Bicycle
4-quart kettle Quart of whisky Wheelbarrow
Jar of face cream Bottle of aspirin Lawn chair
Hunting knife Nail clippers 25 feet of garden hose
Sleeping bag First aid manual Hammer and sack of nails
Deck of cards Cassette recorder Farmer’s Almanac
 Lord of the Flies: Into (Overhead)

JOURNAL #2

Directions: Please write the question then

respond honestly.

1. Who had the best list?

2. Why was the list good?

3. If you had to make the List Maker

your leader in the mountains, would
you? Why or why not?

4. If you had a friend and he or she

wanted to be leader, but the list he or
she made wasn’t as good as some
other List Makers, would you vote for
the friend anyway? Why or why not?
(The vote would be taken openly.)
 Lord of the Flies: Into (Overhead)

Literary Term

Allusion

An allusion is a reference or mention in a work of

fiction—like a book, song, poem or movie to another
work of fiction

Example: The Lord of the Flies is named that as an

allusion to a passage in the bible. The passage is in
reference to “Beelzebub,” or “The Devil!” Therefore,
the allusion in the title leads readers to believe that
the book has some sort of religious connotation.

NOTE: An ALLSUION is NOT the SAME as an

ILLUSION!!!

Directions: Come up with three allusions, and what

they allude to, of your own—it can be from a book,
song, movie, TV show or other work of fiction
 Lord of the Flies: Into (Overhead)

JOURNAL #3

Directions: Look at the book cover… notice

and write down all the details… colors,
things, images, objects, your emotional
reaction, and anything that comes to mind
when you see it.

Number your paper from 1-12. Read the

chapter titles in the table of contents and
make a prediction about what will happen in
the chapter based on the name of it.
 Lord of the Flies: Into
Who Should Survive?

Situation: A severe storm has crippled a small ship, the S.S. Guppy, and the only
remaining lifeboat has room for only seven people. You have no hope of reaching
civilization, but there's a fairly good chance that you can make it to one of many small,
uncharted, and unpopulated islands in the area. You may have to remain on such an
island for years. Your task is to choose which seven people should be allowed on the
lifeboat, and hence, be allowed to survive.

Directions: Break into groups of four. Come to a group consensus of which 7 people
you would save and why. Be also able to defend why you have chosen not to take
others. You will be expected to present your findings to the class the next day.

1. Dr. Dane: thirty-seven, Ph.D. in history, college professor, in good health (jogs
daily), hobby is botany, enjoys politics, married with one child (Bobby).

2. Mrs. Dane: thirty-eight, rather obese, diabetic, M.A. in psychology, counselor in a

mental health clinic, married to Dr. Dane, has one child.

3. Bobby: ten, mentally retarded with IQ of 70.

4. Mrs. Victor: twenty-three, ninth-grade education, cocktail waitress, worked as a

prostitute, married at age sixteen, divorced at age eighteen.

5. Jean Garcia: three months old, healthy.

6. Mary Evans: eighteen, trade school education, wears glasses, artistic.

7. Mr. Newton: twenty-five, starting last year of medical school, suspected

homosexual activity, music as a hobby, physical fitness nut.

8. Mrs. Clark: twenty-eight, daughter of a minister, college graduate, electronics

engineer, single now after a brief marriage, member of Zero Population.

9. Mr. Blake: fifty-one, B.S. in mechanics, married with four children, enjoys
outdoors, much experience in construction, quite handy, sympathizes with anti-
black views.

10. Father Frans: thirty-seven, Catholic, priest, active in civil rights, former college
athlete, farming background, often criticized for liberal views.

11. Dr. Gonzales: sixty-six, doctor in general practice, two heart attacks in the past
five years, loves literature and quotes extensively.
 Lord of the Flies: Handout

Word Bank
Directions: Using a dictionary and/ or your own knowledge, please indicate the words’
parts of speech and the definition.

Word Part of Definition

Speech
Metaphor
Paradise
Atomic bomb
Civilization
Savage
Protagonist
Antagonist
Conflict
Anarchy
Symbolism
Moral order
Barbaric
Democracy
Dictatorship
Allegory
Ritual
Moral message
 Lord of the Flies: Into (Overhead)

FOUR CORNERS

People my age can be trusted as

much as adults

People my age need adult supervision in

most situations or will wind up messing
things up

I am responsible and can be trusted

When my friends do things that are

against the rules, I go along

If a friend of mine was acting cruel

toward another person, I would tell him/
her to stop

I can make decisions on my own. I don’t

need the help or input of others
Lord of the Flies: (Overhead)

JOURNAL #4

Pretend you and three of your friends had

crash-landed on an island with no people,
scary things in the night, and just fruit and
pigs to eat. (You have the same supplies as
the boys in the book we’re about to read
do.)

How long do you think it would take before

you all started fighting? Which one of you
would loose his/ her “cool” first? Why?

Which one of you is the “brave” one, which

one is the “care taker,” who is the “cry
baby?”
 Lord of the Flies: Handout

Movie-Part 1
1. What’s going on in the OPENING CREDITS of the movie; what do you
see and what does it indicate or symbolize?

2. When you first see PIGGY and RALPH what is your reaction? Are
they liked you pictured them? How about their voices?

3. So far, what are some of the ways that the movie is different from the
book?
 Lord of the Flies: Handout

Main Events Log

Directions: Write down the 2 most important events that occurred in the chapter. Please
make sure these are SPECIFIC events and you’ve connected them to their characters.
BAD EXAMPLE: “boys find each other” GOOD EXAMPLE: Ralph blows conch and boys unite
Chapter 2 main plot events Evidence (quotation)
1. The Sound of the
Shell

2. Fire on the
Mountain

3. Hits on the
Beach

4. Painted Faces
and Long Hair

5. Beast From
Water

6. Beast from the

Air
 Main Events Log
Directions: Write down the 2 most important events that occurred in the chapter. Please
make sure these are SPECIFIC events and you’ve connected them to their characters.
BAD EXAMPLE: “boys find each other” GOOD EXAMPLE: Ralph blows conch and boys unite
Chapter 2 main plot events Evidence (quotation)
7. Shadows and
Tall Trees

8. Gift for the

Darkness

9. A View to a
Death

10. The Shell and

the Glasses

11. Castle Rock

12. Cry of the

Hunters
 Lord of the Flies: Handout

Map
Directions:
Please review this map of the island and label the places that you recognize.
 Lord of the Flies: Handout

Novel Symbols & Metaphors

Directions: Below are several metaphors found in the book. Please write about what you think they are
compared to or what they represent. After, find a passage that proves your assertion that the thing is a
metaphor. The first one has been done as a model for you; you are expected to put as much detail and
effort into the rest. Use your WORD BANK as a language tool.

Literal Figurative Key Passage

Thing (Metaphoric)
Representation
The glasses represent man’s
intelligence and ability to see
Piggy’s glasses things logically and
scientifically. They represent
reason. (Maybe hope/
survival, too because they
create fire…?)
(page number)
“Are there ghosts?”
”Course there aren’t”
“Why not?”
“’Cos things wouldn’t make
sense. Houses an’ streets, an’
TV—hey wouldn’t work…”
(92)

The island

The conch

The Beastie

Face paint

Fire/ smoke

The parachute man

 Lord of the Flies: (Overhead)

JOURNAL #5

I’m always confused at this point in the

book. I don’t know what to think. Help me.

Is anyone responsible for Simon’s death?

Was it an accident? What do you believe
and why do you believe it? Please think
carefully, be honest, and consider all that
you know about the incident.

Use the text to help you persuade me that

your opinion about this is the right one to
believe.
 Lord of the Flies: Handout

Informational Article: Feral Children

Directions: Please read the following article and make notes in the margins. If you think
of questions along the way, please write them on the last page in preparation for a
discussion.

FeralChildren.com isolated, confined, wolf and wild children

The Story of Genie

On November 4, 1970 a girl was discovered. She had been locked in a room alone for over ten
years. She was tied to a potty chair and left to sit alone day after day. At night, she was tied into
a sleeping bag which restrained her arms. She was put into an over-sized crib with a cover
made of metal screening. Often she was forgotten. On those nights she slept tied to the potty
chair.

At first, people could hardly believe that Genie was thirteen years old. While she seemed to
understand a few words, the only words she could say were, "stopit" and "nomore." She had a
strange bunny-like walk— she held her hands up in front of her like paws and moved in a halting
way. She could not chew solid food and could hardly swallow. She spat constantly. She sniffed.
She was not toilet-trained and could not focus her eyes beyond 12 feet. She weighed 59 pounds
and was 54 inches tall.

Genie was rescued and put in Children's Hospital in Los Angeles, California. Genie's mental
and physical development began almost immediately. By the third day in the hospital, Genie
began helping dress herself and using the toilet voluntarily. She began moving more smoothly.
She was hungry to learn words, pointing at things until people would give her a word for them.

Scientists wondered, "Did Genie have a normal learning capacity? Could a nurturing, enriched
environment make up for Genie's horrible past? Would it be possible for Genie to recover
completely?" This is how the "experiment" began.

A team of scientists (referred to as the Genie Team) began working with Genie. They wanted to
find out what they could about how humans learn. Over 200 years ago, scientists had studied
another "wild child" in France named Victor. They called that case "The Forbidden Experiment."
Genie's case was similar because it would be unthinkable to lock up or put a child in such
severe isolation on purpose.

But having discovered a child who had been isolated, scientists wanted to learn from that
experience. Was that wrong? As with Victor, people wondered if scientists should be studying
Genie. Could she be both studied and taken care of well? Or should the Genie research be
forbidden?
Within several months Genie had a vocabulary of over one hundred words that she understood,
though she was still very silent. Her talking was limited to short high-pitched squeaks that were
hard to understand. The team of scientists discovered that Genie had been beaten for making
noise. It was hard to know if her inability to talk was a result of living so long without interacting
with other humans, being in an impoverished environment with little sensory stimulation, or
because she had been abused.

Genie began to become emotionally attached to some of the scientists who spent time with her.
One scientist made sure that he was there every morning when Genie woke up, for important
events during the day, and to put her to bed each night, in order to build a sense of family.
Some people thought that it was necessary to feel connected to other humans before one could
learn to speak. After about six months, Genie lived in a foster home. The father of the family she
lived with was the head of the Genie Team.

Genie continued to recover and develop. She ran, giggled, and smiled. People commented that
in some ways she seemed like a normal 18-20-month-old child. If you were to give her a toy,
she would feel it gently first with her fingertips. Then she would rub it against her mouth and
face, using her lips to feel the object. Genie did not seem to know when to use her eyes and
when to use her sense of touch.

Genie's scientist "friends" took her on daily outings—walks through the neighborhood, visits to
stores. Genie was so curious and hungry for experiences. She would demand to know the
names for all the things in stores, almost faster than she could be told. She would pick up items
and intently explore them. Even strangers felt compelled to help her learn about the world. A
butcher, who knew nothing about Genie, used to hand her an unwrapped bone, piece of meat or
fish each time she passed by his shop. She would explore it by rubbing it on her lips and face.
Other strangers would go out of their way to give Genie things. Somehow her thirst for learning
about her world showed.

Many scientists came from all over to meet and observe Genie. They argued and debated about
what research to do, as did the Genie Team itself. What could Genie best help scientists
discover about learning? Could they conduct their research without interfering with her well-
being?

Genie's vocabulary grew by leaps and bounds, but she was still not able to string words
together into meaningful sentences. Normal children begin by learning to say simple sentences,
like "No have toy." Soon they are able to say "I not have toy." Eventually they will learn to say, "I
do not have the toy.' Later they will refine the sentence to say, "I don't have the toy." Genie
seemed to be stuck at the first stage. We do learn many words from experience, from seeing,
hearing, reading, and asking. But some scientists think that learning how to speak in sentences
and sensing how words get put together in logical order also depends on something that is built
into our brains from birth. Was Genie's brain missing something which was necessary for
learning language?

Scientists began to wonder if Genie was mentally retarded. If she was, had she been mentally
retarded from birth? Had she been injured? Or was the retardation a result of her brain being
deprived of good nutrition and/or stimulation? How had her poor diet and isolated upbringing
affected her growing brain?

Over the next couple of years, some scientists concluded that Genie was not mentally retarded,
even though she was still unable to master language. She was brilliant at nonverbal
communication. Sometimes she would be so frustrated at not being able to say what she
wanted that she would grab a pencil and paper and in a few strokes, illustrate fairly complex
ideas and even feelings. She scored the highest recorded score ever on tests that measure a
person's ability to make sense out of chaos and to see patterns. Her abilities to understand and
to think logically were also strong. She had a perfect score on an adult-level test that measured
spatial abilities. One test required that she use a set of colored sticks to recreate a complicated
structure from memory. She was not only able to build the structure perfectly, she built it with
sticks of the exact same color as the first structure! Despite all this, Genie remained unable to
master the basics of language.

Scientists wondered—-could she ever be taught to speak? If so, how would her brain have to
grow and adapt to do so? Could a teenager still learn to talk or is the structure of language
something that must be learned in the early years of life when the brain is growing and changing
so much?

In most humans, both sides of the brain are involved in every task, but some tasks result in
more electrical activity on the right side of the brain and some in more activity on the left side of
the brain. Scientists noticed that Genie was particularly good, quick, and confident at those
tasks that involved more of the right brain. She was hesitant at tasks that require equal
coordination between the two sides of the brain. She failed at tasks that involved more of the left
brain, such as language.

One of the last tests that was done on Genie measured what parts of her brain were active as
she conducted different kinds of tasks. Scientists were shocked at how unbalanced the activity
in her brain was. There was almost no left brain activity. Her tests looked similar to tests of
children who had to have their left brains removed.

Some scientists thought this explained her inability to learn language. Whether this was correct
or not, it raised the question: Why was her brain activity so lopsided? Does the left brain
develop in those critical early years of life when Genie was so isolated? Does the left brain need
to receive stimulation and hear language to develop?

After about five years of researching Genie's progress, the Genie Team lost their funding from
the government agency that had awarded the research grant. The scientists at this agency felt
that the Genie Team was not doing good scientific research because the tests Genie was being
given were not producing enough new information. At the same time that these people felt that
Genie wasn't being tested enough, others felt that Genie was being over- tested.

Genie's mother, encouraged by one of Genie's old teachers, tried to sue the Genie Team for
"cruel" treatment of Genie. Their lawsuit claimed that Genie was exhausted by the testing and
that the interests of science were being viewed as more important than Genie's personal
development.

In the late 1970s Genie's mother forbid the Genie Team from having contact with Genie. Even
though she at first lived again with her mother, her mother was unable to care for Genie herself,
and Genie had to be sent to a series of foster homes.

In one of these homes she was again abused—this time punished for vomiting. Genie
responded by not opening her mouth for several months. Genie began to deteriorate both
physically and mentally. Genie's mother moved and placed Genie in a home for retarded adults.
Genie is said to still live in a home for retarded adults. "Genie" is not her real name. It was first
given to her by the scientists in an effort to protect her privacy. Now her privacy is guarded by
her mother. She has no contact with any of the scientist who worked with her and come to love
her. Several books have been written about her, and a television documentary program was
also made about the story of Genie. An independent film entitled Mockingbird Don't Sing is
based on Genie's life.

To research Genie, please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_%28feral_child%29

To research some of the other 100 documented cases of Feral Children, go to
www.WikiPedia.org and search “feral children” or investigate the Web site address at the
beginning of this article.
 Lord of the Flies: Handout

Informational Article: CHILDREN WHO KILL

The Unthinkable:
Children Who Kill

By Katherine Ramsland

Jesse Pomeroy

Jesse Pomeroy was fourteen when he was arrested in 1874 for the sadistic murder of a four-
year-old boy. He was quickly dubbed "The Boston Boy Fiend." His rampage had begun three
years earlier with the torture of seven other boys. For those crimes Pomeroy was sentenced to
reform school, but then he was released early. Not long afterward he mutilated and killed a 10-
year-old girl who came into his mother's store. A month later, he snatched four-year-old Horace
Mullen. He took Horace to a swamp outside town and slashed him so savagely with a knife that
he nearly decapitated the child. Because of his strange appearance—he had a milky white
eye---and his previous behavior, suspicion turned to him. When he was shown the body and
asked if he'd done it, he responded with a nonchalant, "I suppose I did." Then the girl was found
buried in his mother's cellar and he confessed to that murder, too. He was convicted and
sentenced to death, although a public outcry against condemning a child to hang commuted the
sentence to four decades of solitary confinement.

Mary Flora Bell wanted to "hurt" someone. She was an angry child, the product of an unsettled
home in which chronic abuse was the norm. She had a friend, Nora Bell, and they often did
things together. When Mary was eleven, she and Nora lured a boy to the top of an air raid
shelter. When he fell and was injured, it was thought to be an accident. Two weeks later, the
corpse of four-year-old Martin Brown was found, another assumed accident. Then police
discovered notes that indicated that someone was taking responsibility. Then Mary showed up
at Martin's home so she could "see him in his coffin." Two months passed and another local
toddler, three-year-old Brian Howe, turned up missing. When Mary suggested that he might be
playing on a certain pile of concrete, searchers looked where she indicated and found his body.
He'd been strangled. The medical examiner believed it to be the handiwork of a child.

Mary and Norma were brought in; Mary made up a story but Norma described watching Mary
kill the boy. They went to trial in 1968 in England, where Mary was convicted of two counts of
manslaughter. People called her "evil" and a "bad seed," in part because she seemed so
indifferent to the proceedings against her. A court psychiatrist said that she was manipulative
and dangerous.

Willie Bosket had committed over two thousand crimes in New York by the time he was fifteen,
including stabbing several people. The son of a convicted murderer, he never knew his father
but revered him for his "manly" crime. Just before he was sixteen, his crimes became more
serious. Killing another boy in a fight, he then embarked upon a series of subway crimes, which
ended up in the deaths of two men. He shot them, he later said, just to see what it was like. It
didn't affect him. He knew the juvenile laws well enough to realize that he could continue to do
what he was doing and yet still get released when he was twenty-one. He had no reason to
stop.

Yet it was his spree and his arrogance that brought about a dramatic change in the juvenile
justice system, starting there in New York. The "Willie Bosket law," which allowed dangerous
juveniles as young as thirteen to be tried in adult courts, was passed and signed in six days.
Willie went on to commit more crimes, although none as serious as murder, and ended up with
prison terms that ensured that he would spend the rest of his life there.

Cindy Collier was 15 and Shirley Wolf 14 when they started prowling condominiums in California
in 1983. They knocked on doors at random to gain admittance. An elderly woman let them in
and sat chatting with them as they thought up a plan to steal her car. Shirley grabbed her by the
neck while Cindy found a butcher knife and tossed it to her. Shirley stabbed her victim 28 times,
even as the old woman begged for her life. They fled the scene, but were soon arrested. Both
confessed that the murder was "a Kick" and that they wanted to do another one. They thought it
was fun.

Edmund Kemper in
prison clothes

In 1964, when Edmund Kemper was 15, he shot his grandparents, killing them both. He'd been
imagining this act for some time and had no regrets. The California Youth Authority detained
him in Juvenile Hall so that they could put him through a battery of tests administered by a
psychiatrist. Since the results indicated that he was paranoid and psychotic, he was sent to
Atascadero State Hospital for treatment. There he learned what people thought about his crime
and worked hard to convince his doctors that he had recovered. Although he was labeled a
sociopath, he actually worked in the psychology lab to help administer the tests to others. In the
process, he learned a lot about other deviant offenders.

Kemper was released five years later, although he remained under the supervision of the Youth
Authority. His doctors recommended that he not be returned to his mother's care, but the Youth
Authority ignored this. After Kemper murdered and dismembered eight women over the next five
years, these same doctors affirmed his insanity defense. In fact, even as he was carrying parts
of his victims around, a panel of psychiatrists judged him to be no threat to society.

In 1998, 14-year-old Joshua Phillips bludgeoned his 8-year-old neighbor, and then hid her body
beneath his waterbed. Seven days later his mother noticed something leaking from beneath the
bed. Joshua claimed that's he'd accidentally hit Maddie in the eye with a baseball. She
screamed and he panicked. He then dragged her to his home where he hit her with a bat and
then stabbed her eleven times. His story failed to convince a Florida jury, who convicted him of
first-degree murder.
For many people, children who kill are monstrous, unthinkable. Yet where they once were rare
deviants, they are now becoming more commonplace. Let's look at the types of killings that
children initiate to see the variety of motives involved.

Types of Killers

Kids who kill fall into different categories, according to their traits, situations, and motivations.
Some kills are accidental, such as those involving kids who find their parents' guns, but many
occur within a specific type of context and have motives. Most of the experts categorize these
killings by kids as:

1. Inner city/gang killers these are kids who grow up in violent environments and who may
have violent role models, such that their typical mode of response, whether for self-defense or
just to get what they want, is violence. This also includes gang killers, or children who are
pressured from within a gang to kill. They feel more powerful as a member of the gang, so they
will do what it takes to get respect. In fact, within some gangs any restraint on violence is
viewed as weak.

2. Killing within a family: Kids who kill members of their family for reasons other than an
accident, feel pressured by demands, abuse, hatred, desire for gain, and even by the need of
other family members. One 14-year-old enlisted this brother to help him murder their parents,
and one mother provoked her son into killing his father. A fourteen-year-old in China killed his
family because he thought his mother was not taking care of him properly. When he was ill one
night, she ordered him back to bed. Instead, he stabbed his father 37 times, his mother 72 times
and his grandmother 56 times. Then he washed his hair and watched a videotape.

3. Cult killings: 16-year-old Roderick Ferrell killed the parents of his former girlfriend in order to
steal their car so he could take his friends—members of his vampire cult—to New Orleans. A lot
of kids identify themselves as Satanists because it gives them the feeling of power over others
and the mystique of having secret associations with another world. It also gives them license to
do things like rob, damage property, and kill. Sometimes they decide that human sacrifice is
necessary to increase their powers, so they kill. Ferrell claimed that he needed many victims in
order to open the Gates of Hell.

4. Mental Illness: Sam Manzie, 15, opened the door to eleven-year-old Eddie Werner, who was
out raising money for his school. He invited the boy in, then raped and strangled him, hiding
Werner's body outside. Manzie had been the victim of a child abuser and had shown signs of
serious mental illness. His parents had desperately tried to get him help and were convinced
that he would become violent. A doctor interviewed the boy for about ten minutes and told the
parents to take him home. They were over-reacting, he said. Only three days later he murdered
Werner. Many people have a difficult time believing that children can be mentally ill, but they
suffer depression and paranoid schizophrenia just like adults. When it goes undiagnosed and
untreated, it can spell trouble.

Michael Carneal
5. School killers: They generally act on a perceived wrong done to them by others and view a
climactic closure to the situation as the only way out. Frustrations accumulate into rage that
motivates a spree. Michael Carneal, who shot into a prayer group in Paducah, Kentucky, was
constantly baited by the other students. They said he had "Michael germs" and stole his lunch.
One day he had a gun and even then the other boys taunted him. Finally he decided to act out
and he ended up killing three students.

6. Killing committed during another crime: Fifteen-year-old Sandy Shaw lured James Kelly,
24, into the Nevada desert in 1986 so that she and two friends could rob him. They needed
money to post bail for Sandy's boyfriend. They lifted $1400 and then shot him six times. They
even took friends out to see the body.

7. Hate crimes: Two boys, 17 and 14, shot a man in the head and then ran over him repeatedly
with their car just because he was gay. Such crimes begin with anger and hate and often
involve a build-up of rage. However, there are cases where the killings happened just so the
killers could brag to their friends that they'd rid the world of such a person.

Perhaps the most disturbing motive for killing is just for the thrill of it. Let's have a look at two
cases, one historic, the other contemporary. We'll begin with Leopold and Loeb.

Thrill Killing

The Leopold and Loeb Case

Nathan Leopold & Richard

Loeb

The year was 1924. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, both 19, were close friends. Loeb
worshipped power and Leopold worshipped Loeb. One day in May, they decided to find a child
to kidnap for ransom and murder. They had devised "the perfect crime," they believed, and had
rehearsed it down to the letter. The day finally arrived and they randomly selected young Bobby
Franks outside his school. He knew them, so he climbed into the car. They hit him with a chisel,
then smothered him. Afterward they drove some distance away so they could pour acid on his
face to prevent people from identifying him. Finally they tossed him in a covert where Leopold
often went birding, and went home to write a ransom note.

Unfortunately for Leopold, he dropped his glasses near the covert and from the unique hinges,
the police traced them to him. However, since he often went to the area, he quite believably said
that he'd dropped them while birding. The police continued to look into his background, along
with that of Loeb, and eventually found samples of Leopold's typing that matched the ransom
note. They did not find the portable typewriter in his possession, but when they caught Loeb in a
lie about his car, he rolled on Leopold. They both confessed.
It turned out that the murder had been committed to entertain two bored intellectuals. They
wanted to test their ability to plan and carry out a crime without being caught. It hadn't mattered
which child. They hadn't targeted anyone in particular. They just needed a child who couldn't
fight back. Neither expressed remorse or thought that what they had done was reprehensible.

The press reported this kidnap/murder as unique in the annals of American crime. There had
been no particular motive other than to see if they could get away with it. They were monstrous,
without human feeling. The like had never been seen.

The James Bulger Case

James Bulger
At 3.39 p.m. on February 12, 1993, a surveillance camera in the Bootle Strand shopping center
in Liverpool, England, filmed Robert Thompson and Jon Venables casually taking two-year-old
James Bulger by the hand. They were just outside the butcher's shop, where James's mother
was delayed when the butcher misunderstood her order. Having lost her first child to a
miscarriage, she tried always to be vigilant, but to her shock, James was gone.

Thompson and Venables, both age ten, were skipping school that day, shoplifting and looking
for something to do. For a lark, they decided to see if they could get away with a kidnapping.
According to reports, they had already tried with a four-year-old, who'd resisted them. Then they
came upon James. With him in tow and Thompson leading the way, they left and headed
toward the railroad tracks at Walton, over two miles away.

Along the way, as many as thirty-eight people spotted them and some even inquired what they
were up to, but no one stopped them. Several had noticed that James had a head injury and
appeared distressed. They did not realize that the boys had dropped him on his head. One
woman wanted to escort him to the nearby police station, but no one would watch her dog so
she let the boys go off by themselves.

The lifeless body of young James was soon discovered on the tracks. Clearly the boy had not
just fallen onto the tracks. Someone had seriously injured him beforehand.

During the weeklong investigation, an innocent boy named Jonathan Green was arrested first,
only because he'd been turned in by his own father. Yet he hadn't been near Bootle Strand that
day, so he was released.

Then suspicion turned on Thompson and Venables. They quickly confessed, each pinning the
blame on the other, and were taken into custody.

The trial lasted three weeks, beginning with extensive descriptions by the prosecutor of the
brutality of the crime. Venables leaned back and cried, but Thompson merely appeared curious.
The impression was formed that he was the ringleader and Venables the follower (the same
perception as with Loeb and Leopold), although Venables was the one who clearly stated in his
confession, "I did kill him."
While the people of Britain who were ready to hang them believed that all along they'd plotted to
kill a child—any child---there was no evidence to support this. The boys had taken no weapons
and had ended up using whatever was available. It appeared to be the case that they'd simply
come up with the prank of taking a child, and then unable to think of a way to end it, they'd
simply killed him.

Expert testimony from psychiatrists affirmed that these boys were not insane; they had
understood the nature of their crime and knew it was wrong. Thus, their state of mind at the time
of the crime was not psychotic. In essence, they acted with adult consciousness. The
pathologist confirmed that the wounds showed brutal intent.

It was decided that the boys would not do well on the witness stand, so they were not offered in
their own defense. The jury deliberated for several days and then came back with a verdict: both
boys were guilty of abduction and murder, although no verdict was reached regarding the
attempted abduction of another child. Judge Michael Morland sentenced them to a rather
indeterminate prison term: "very, very many years", until it was clear they had been rehabilitated
and were no longer a danger to society.

What did not come into court, but what the psychiatrists had found, was that both boys were
from troubled homes. Thompson had been abused. Together, they seemed to spur each other
on to do things that neither would have done alone. Had an adult actually intervened, they
would have given James over. They were scared of getting into trouble and they didn't
understand the irrevocable nature of death.

A month later, the judge's sentence was clarified: the boys were to serve a minimum of eight
years, i.e., until they are eighteen years old. This sentence was much shorter than expected and
caused a public outcry. Home Secretary Michael Howard changed it to a minimum of fifteen
years.

The boys' lawyers argued against this, citing the fact that the Howard had not looked at the
mitigating circumstances stated in the psychiatric reports. Their appeal was upheld. When the
Home Secretary counter-appealed, the lawyers took the case to the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights. They wanted the sentence decided by a judge, not by
government officials who depended on the public good will.

The European Court ruled that the two boys had not received a fair trial and stated that it was
not correct for the Home Secretary to set the minimum punishment. The Human Rights
Convention guarantees a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. The lawyers
will seek parole for the boys when they reach the age of 18.

Blake Morrison covered the trial in As If: A Crime, A Trial, A Question of Childhood because it
was a precedent-setting case and because it seemed to draw forth a brutal sort of rage from the
crowd, who wanted to lynch the two ten-year-olds on the spot. His own opinion is that the trial
failed to bring out why these children had done what they did, and in failing that, the court did
not attend to matters of justice.
 Lord of the Flies: Overhead

Journal # 6

Please take out the “Symbols and

Metaphors” and the “Word Bank” handout
and respond to the following questions –
use as many of the Word Bank words in
your answer as you can…

1) Why does Piggy cling to the conch

when he goes to Jack’s camp?
2) When the conch breaks, why is it so
dramatic?
3) How has the face paint changed the
boys?

Journal # 6b

Who is responsible for Piggy’s death? To

what degree are they responsible?
 Lord of the Flies: Handout

What is Murder?
Situation: The following excerpt is from The Thomas Gale Law Encyclopedia… you will
be expected to use these guidelines in Tribal Council.

Directions: Read the following with a partner and make notes in the margins, look up
words you don’t’ understand, and raise you had to ask for help.

MURDER: The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

Murder is perhaps the single most serious criminal offense. Depending on the circumstances
surrounding the killing, a person convicted of murder may be sentenced to many years in
prison, a prison sentence with no possibility of parole, or death.

The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the common law,
or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice
aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or
premeditated on the killing, or that the killer felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice
aforethought referred to a level of intent or recklessness that separated murder from other
killings and warranted stiffer punishment.

The definition of murder has evolved over several centuries. Under most modern statutes in the
United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder, (2) a killing that resulted
from the intent to do serious bodily injury, (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or
extreme recklessness, and (4) murder committed by an accomplice during the commission of,
attempt of, or flight from certain felonies.

Some jurisdictions still use the term malice aforethought to define intentional murder, but many
have changed or elaborated on the term to describe more clearly a murderous state of mind.
California has retained the malice aforethought definition of murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187
[West 1996]). California also maintains a statute that defines the term malice. Under section 188
of the California Penal Code, malice is divided into two types: express and implied. Express
malice exists "when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of
a fellow creature." Malice may be implied by a judge or jury "when no considerable provocation
appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant
heart."

Many states use the California definition of implied malice to describe an unintentional killing
that is charged as murder because the defendant intended to do serious bodily injury or acted
with extreme recklessness. For example, if an aggressor punches a victim in the nose, intending
only to injure the victim's face, the aggressor may be charged with murder if the victim dies from
the blow. The infliction of serious bodily injury becomes the equivalent of an intent to kill when
the victim dies. Although the aggressor did not have the express desire to kill the victim, the
aggressor in such a case would not be charged with assault, but murder. To understand why, it
is helpful to consider the alternative. When a person dies at the hands of an aggressor, it does
not sit well with the public conscience to preclude a murder charge simply because the
aggressor intended only to do serious bodily injury.

justification-(n) a right jurisdiction-(n) a place malice-(n) hatred

intent-(n) goal warranted-(adj) necessary manifested-(verb) created
deliberate-(adj) on purpose provocation-(n) irritant intention-(n) meaning
malignant-(adj) evil equivalent-(adj) the same conscience(n) sense of right
A person who unintentionally causes the death of another person also may be charged with
murder under the depraved-heart theory. Depraved-heart murder refers to a killing that results
from gross negligence. For example, assume that a man is practicing shooting his firearm in his
backyard, located in a suburban area. If the man accidentally shoots and kills someone, he can
be charged with murder under the depraved-heart theory.

Most states also have a felony murder statute. Under the felony murder doctrine, a person who
attempts or commits a specified felony may be held responsible for a death caused by an
accomplice in the commission of the felony, an attempt to commit the felony, or flight from the
felony or attempted felony. For example, if two persons rob a bank and during the robbery one
of them shoots and kills a security guard, the perpetrator who did not pull the trigger may
nevertheless be charged with murder.

The felonies that most commonly give rise to a felony murder charge are murder, rape, robbery,
burglary, kidnapping, and arson. Many states add to this list. Maine, for example, adds gross
sexual assault and escape from lawful custody (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 202 [West
1996]). Generally, felony murder exists only if the death was a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the felony, a felony attempt, or flight from the crime. For example, courts have
held that death is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of armed robbery.

Most states divide the crime of murder into first and second degrees. In such states any
intentional, unlawful killing done without justification or excuse is considered second-degree
murder. The offense usually is punished with a long prison term or a prison term for life without
the possibility of parole. Second-degree murder can be upgraded to first-degree murder, a more
serious offense than second-degree murder, if the murder was accomplished with an
aggravating or a special circumstance. An aggravating or a special circumstance is something
that makes the crime especially heinous or somehow worthy of extra punishment.

California lists some twenty different special circumstances that can boost a murder from
second to first degree, including murder carried out for financial gain; murder committed with an
explosive; murder committed to avoid or prevent a lawful arrest; murder to perfect or attempt an
escape from lawful custody; murder of a law enforcement officer, prosecutor, judge, or elected,
appointed, or former government official; murder committed in an especially heinous, atrocious,
or cruel fashion where the killer lay in wait for, or hid from, the victim, where the victim was
tortured by the killer, where the killer used poison, or where the killing occurred during the
commission of, aid of, or flight from certain felonies. These felonies include rape, robbery,
kidnapping, burglary, arson, train wrecking, sodomy, the performance of a lewd or lascivious act
upon a child under age fourteen, and oral copulation with a child under age fourteen (Cal. Penal
Code § 190.2 [West 1996]).

If a murder does not qualify by statute for first-degree murder, it is charged as second-degree
murder. A second-degree murder may be downgraded to manslaughter if mitigating factors
were involved in the killing, such as adequate provocation by the victim or the absence of intent
or recklessness on the part of the defendant.

Maine is an example of a state that has simplified the law of murder. In Maine a person is guilty
of murder if he or she intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another human being,
engages in conduct that manifests a depraved indifference to the value of human life and
causes death, or intentionally or knowingly causes another human being to commit suicide by
the use of force, duress, or deception (Me. Stat. tit. 17-A § 201 [1996]). Maine also has a felony
murder statute. It does not divide murder into degrees.

Sentencing for murder varies from state to state, and according to degrees in the states that
have them. Second-degree murder usually is punished with more than twenty years in prison. A
person convicted of second-degree murder in Minnesota, for example, may be sentenced to
prison for not more than forty years. Some states, such as California, allow a sentence up to life
in prison for second-degree murder.

In some states that have a first-degree murder charge, the crime is punished with a life term in
prison without the possibility of parole. In other states first-degree murder is punishable by
death. A defendant's criminal history may affect sentencing for a murder conviction. The greater
the criminal history, the more time the defendant is likely to serve. The criminal history of a
murder defendant may even cause a murder charge to be upgraded from second degree to first
degree. In California, for example, a murder defendant who has a prior conviction for murder
faces an automatic first-degree murder charge.

The best defenses to a murder charge are provocation and self-defense. If the defendant acted
completely in self-defense, this may relieve the defendant of all criminal liability. If it does not
relieve the defendant of all liability, self-defense at least may reduce the charge from murder to
manslaughter. Provocation rarely results in complete absolution, but it may reduce the
defendant's criminal liability. For example, assume that a family is being tormented by a
neighbor for no apparent reason. The neighbor has damaged the family's property, assaulted
the children, and killed the family dog. If the father kills the neighbor and is charged with murder,
the father may argue that the provocation by the victim was so great that if he is to be found
criminally liable at all, he should be found liable for manslaughter, not murder.

Insanity is another defense to a murder charge. If a defendant was suffering from such a defect
of the mind that she did not know what she was doing, or she did not know that what she was
doing was wrong, she may be found not guilty by reason of insanity. In some states the
defendant may be found guilty but mentally ill. In either case the result is the same: the
defendant is confined to a mental institution instead of a prison.

The modern law of murder is relatively static, but minor changes are occasionally proposed or
implemented. Some legislatures have debated the idea of striking assisted suicide from murder
statutes. Many have made changes with respect to juveniles. Juveniles accused of murder used
to be tried in juvenile courts, but in the 1980s and 1990s, legislatures passed laws to make
juvenile murder defendants over the ages of fourteen or fifteen stand trial as adults. This is
significant because a juvenile defendant convicted in the juvenile justice system may go free on
reaching a certain age, such as twenty-one. A juvenile defendant tried in adult court does not
have such an opportunity and may be sentenced to prison for many years, or for life without
parole. A juvenile may be put to death on conviction for murder but only if he was age sixteen or
older at the time of the offense (Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 108 S. Ct. 2687, 101 L.
Ed. 2d 702 [1988]).
 Lord of the Flies: Overhead

Journal # 7

Please answer the following questions with

short answers:

1. What does Ralph discover when he flees to the beach?

2. How does Jack look?
3. What boy cannot remember his name?
4. Who takes responsibility for the events on the island?
5. Why is the naval officer disappointed in the boys?

Please answer the following questions with

longer answers:

1. What do you think would have happened to Ralph if the

officer hadn’t shown up?
2. If you were one of Jack’s tribe (not Roger), what would
you have told the officer on the boat ride home?
3. What do you think will happen to the boys when they
return to England?
 Lord of the Flies: Hand Out

What is Murder: Four Corner Review

3-5 Important Facts or Graphic Display
Statements

3-5 Questions I Still Have Connection to the book

Additional details (in your own words…)

What is murder in the 1st degree?___________________________________________

What is murder in the 2nd degree?___________________________________________
What is murder with a “depraved heart”? _____________________________________
What are two DEFENSES for murder?_______________________________________
 Lord of the Flies: Hand Out

Pre-Trial Notes
Situation: Imagine the boys make it home to England… but because they come from a culture
that adheres to a moral and legal order, someone (or several people) must he held accountable
for the incidents that occurred on the island.

Directions: Review the questions below and answer them honestly, then look for evidence in
the text that supports your belief. Write the page number where the evidence is, and add a post
it to your book that helps you explain when we review this assignment in class.

Question Yes No Why or why not? Page #

1. Should Ralph be put on

trial for his part in the death of
Simon?

2. Should Jack be put on trial

for his part in the death of
Simon?

3. Should Ralph be put on

trial for the death of Piggy?

4. Should Jack be put on trial

for the death of Piggy?

5. Should Roger be put on

trial for the death of Piggy?

Directions: Read the question below and CHOOSE one answer by placing a check in
the box next to the answer.

If there was a trial and the boys had to go court, I would like to…
…punish (prosecute) Jack

…help (defend) Jack

…punish (prosecute) Ralph

…help (defend) Ralph

…punish (prosecute) Roger

…help (defend) Roger

 Lord of the Flies: Overhead

Journal # 8

There will be a legal trial.

__________________ will stand in

front of his accusers, a jury
and a judge to either be sentenced to
jail time or be set free.

Using your “What is Murder?”

handout, please write about what
DEGREE of murder this young man
should be charged with and why.
 Lord of the Flies: Handout

Trial Document [Viren 2009]

(ALL CLASS MEMBERS MUST COMPLETE)
Directions: Write a SINGLE page that includes all the information below.
Requirements: TYPED Helvetica, Times Roman, or similar font. Single Spaced, double
paragraph break between each of the three sections (see other side)

Write… Show… Trial DOCUMENT

A) OPENING statement

(No more than one

1. As if you Show evidence* (in your paragraph)
were the opening statement) that the
Prosecuting boy in question is guilty of the B) THREE questions
Attorney crime for which he is being for the defendant (Jack
accused. or Roger—your choice)
with answers
Use 1 quote from the book and
one from the “What is murder?” C) TWO questions for
packet. TWO witnesses, with
AND… answers

OPENING statement
that argues AGAINST
2. As if you Show evidence* (in your what is said in the
were the opening statement) that the statement above
Defending boy in question is not guilty of (No more than one
Attorney the crime for which he is being paragraph)
accused.
THREE questions for
the defendant (Jack or
Roger—your choice)
Use 1 quote from the book and with answers
one from the “What is murder?”
packet. TWO questions for the
TWO witnesses, with
answers
*Evidence: must be an event or conversation that can be shown with a passage
from the book (include exact words and page number). You must also use a
passage from the “What is murder?” packet.

MODEL (This is what the Trial DOCUMENT Should Look Like) Name_______/ Per___

A) Opening Statement of PROSECUTION

The Defendant __________________ is guilty of the crime of murder in the _______
degree because____________________. The Prosecution will show that blah, blah and
blah… this is where you tell the people why the boy should be charged with the crimes.
This is where you use evidence and site page numbers. This is where you tell us why it
doesn’t matter what others may think about the boy, etc. This should be a short
paragraph of about four sentences. It should PERSUADE that the boy is GUILTY.

B) Questions for the Defendant (indicate Jack or Roger)

1) This is your first question: you are asking it of the boy on trial
This is the answer he would have to give based on the evidence in the book.
2) This is your second question: you are asking it of the boy on trial
This is the answer he would have to give based on the evidence in the book.
3) This is your third question: you are asking it of the boy on trial
This is the answer he would have to give based on the evidence in the book.

C) Witness Questions for the Prosecution

1) This is the name of your first witness.
Q. This is the question you want to ask him
A. This is the answer he gives based on the evidence in the book.
2) This is the name of your second witness.
Q. This is the question you want to ask him
A. This is the answer he gives based on the evidence in the book.

---------------------------------------------------------------

A) Opening Statement of DEFENSE

This is where you start by writing: The Defendant __________________ is not guilty of
the crime of murder because____________________. The Defense will show that blah,
blah and blah… this is where you tell the people why the boy should not be charged
with the crimes. This is where you use evidence and site page numbers. This is where
you tell us why it doesn’t matter what others may think about the boy, etc. This should
be a short paragraph of about four sentences. It should PERSUADE that the boy is
NOT GUILTY.

B) Questions for the Defendant (Indicate Jack or Roger)

1) This is your first question: you are asking it of the boy on trial
This is the answer he would have to give based on the evidence in the book.
2) This is your second question: you are asking it of the boy on trial
This is the answer he would have to give based on the evidence in the book.
3) This is your third question: you are asking it of the boy on trial
This is the answer he would have to give based on the evidence in the book.

C) Witnesses for the Defense

1) This is the name of your first witness.
Q. This is the question you want to ask him
 A. This is the answer he gives based on the evidence in the book.
2) This is the name of your second witness.
Q. This is the question you want to ask him
A. This is the answer he gives based on the evidence in the book.
 Lord of the Flies: Handout
Mock Trial Rubric
(to be used by Jury members)

CATEGORY 4 3 2 1
Information All information Most Most Information had
(Statement of presented in information information several
the events and the trial was presented in presented in the inaccuracies OR
facts ) clear, accurate the trial was trial was clear was usually not
and thorough. clear, accurate and accurate, clear.
and thorough. but was not
usually
thorough.

Rebuttal All counter- Most counter- Most counter- Counter-

(The argument arguments arguments arguments were arguments were
other have and were accurate, were accurate, accurate and not accurate
the person in relevant and relevant, and relevant, but and/or relevant
question’s ability strong. strong. several were
to address it) weak.

Use of Facts Every major Every major Most major

(This is evidence point was well point was points were No points were
from the book supported with adequately supported with supported.
and or maps, several supported with facts, statistics
pictures, etc) relevant facts, relevant facts, and/or
statistics and/or statistics and/or examples, but
examples. examples. the relevance of
some was
questionable.

Presentation The team took The team took The team took The team
(Physical everything almost didn’t take most thought his was
appearance, seriously from everything of the trail a chance for
professional beginning to seriously from seriously. them to clown
attitude, etc.) end. beginning to around
end.

Trial Duties

Day of Final

Jury Duty:
The Jury will find the defendant guilty or not guilty. They will also write 1-2
full paragraphs that will sentence the defendant (If he is proven guilty) to
either murder in the 1st or second degree. If he is found not-guilty, the jury
will write 1-2 paragraphs that indicate why he is not guilty of 1st or 2nd
degree murder.

Prosecuting and Defending Attorneys:

Attorneys will study the Jury Rubric and create a 5 minute opening
argument, maps or pictures, a list of witnesses, and questions for
witnesses, and a three minute closing argument. Attorneys must anticipate
the ARGUMENT of the OTHER side and ADDRESS this argument in their
closing arguments.

Witnesses:
All witnesses must be prepared to answer questions, truthfully, from
anyone of points of view of these characters:

Jack
Ralph
Sam
Eric
Roger
Robert
Percival
Naval Officer (Rescuer)
 Lord of the Flies: Overhead

Final Journal

Was the outcome of the trial fair or

not? Why do you believe this? If the
defendant was a friend or relative of
yours, what do you wish the jury had
taken into consideration
that they did not?