My class debated this question last 10 March in a mock trial. The main objective of the exercise was to synthesize and use knowledge of neurological phenomena, insanity in this case. Another objective was to give the students a practical exercise in rhetoric.
The defense team consisted of Marc Villaluna (counsel, right photo, standing), Bea Araneta (Dr. R. Wen, psychologist, right photo at the computer), and Adrian Portugal (Smeagol). The prosecution team consisted of Jorenz Perez (counsel, left photo standing), Charmaine Cheung (Shelob the Spider, left photo sitting), and Christina Villanueva (Frodo).
The defense argued for insanity on the grounds that the defendant, Smeagol, did not understand what he was doing, was not aware of his actions, and was under the control of an external and irresistible force. Expert witness Dr. R. Wen tried to show that Smeagol showed evidence of a disturbed mind at the time of the alleged crimes.
The prosecution tried to argue that Smeagol demonstrated planning skills and was, therefore, aware of what he was doing. Smeagol showed evidence of such skills when he “conspired” with Shelob. Shelob testified to the effect that she was offered food in the form of Frodo and Sam, although she did not specify whether the food was offered dead or alive. Smeagol also showed planning skills throughout the time that he was guiding Frodo and Sam on their voyage to Mount Doom. Frodo testified that he thought Smeagol has planning skills.
The jury (president Gabrielle Cruz) found that there was no evidence that Smeagol killed Deagol; there were no witnesses, and the body was not found. The prosecution was willing to drop the charge anyway. The jury also found Smeagol not guilty for conspiracy, on the grounds that the agreement with Shelob could not clearly be shown to constitute a plan to commit murder; Shelob herself stated that it was not clear to her whether the food to be provided was dead or alive. However, the jury found Smeagol guilty of theft. The jury agreed that he was capable of planning, and that this showed he was aware of his actions and, therefore, not insane at the time of the crimes. Furthermore, the jury thought that ownership of the ring has historically followed the "finders, keepers" rule; therefore, the de facto owner of the Ring at that time was Frodo. Smeagol desired to possess the ring, and he carried out that desire by biting Frodo’s finger off, as Frodo himself testified.
As regards technique, I noted that the counsels were inexperienced in the mock trial format. This was evident in that they did not distinguish cross examination from direct examination. At one point, the defense’s expert witness, who could easily have been discredited, instead controlled the cross examining counsel. The quality of the evidence left much to be desired; the teams had access to the films, but clips showing the sanity and insanity of Smeagol were not presented. The acting was not also very good. Smeagol, for instance, was supposed to act insane but kept giggling to himself in a self-conscious way. Shelob shot herself in the foot by claiming from the start that she thought Smeagol to be insane. More would have made this exciting. I also pointed out to the teams that mastery of the language was more important in a mock trial than in asian parliamentary, because there is more extemporaneous delivery, and greater theatrical possibilities, in the mock trial.
This is the third year the Smeagol trials in my class. It has always been interesting for teams and audiences alike. It is a rather fitting and memorable way to end a semester.
1 comment:
I remember we used to talk about this topic over a few drinks about 3 years ago. I didn't know it'd be much of a philosophical debate. hahaha.
Post a Comment