Serial 3.3 Discussion Questions And Answers

E4 – Serial 3.2, 3.3 Discussion questions
These questions are designed to get you to process the ideas in the serial podcast and make some connections to our class topics and our society.
For full credit, answer with thought and demonstrate that you've listened to the podcasts closely. Each question deserves about 250 words.
Serial 3.2 Discussion Questions 1. Judge Gaul (Serial 3.2) seems to require defendants to act in particular ways and say particular things in court in order to get lenience. Describe what Judge Gaul expects and try to explain why he does. Why did Rayshawn’s letter work, and why did he later get sent back to jail? What is your opinion of this dynamic?
Judge Gaul wants the defendants to accept responsibility for their

The opinions and acts of Judge Gaul seem to be based on his personal, distinctive view of human nature and behavior. This is demonstrated by the fact that he frequently makes broad generalizations about others and their intentions, as well as by the fact that he frequently appears to base his decisions mostly on his own intuition and gut feelings. Additionally, he considers drug addiction to be an illness that should be treated rather than punished. Additionally, Judge Gaul thinks he is able to help people overcome their addiction by offering them an organized setting, such as a drug court, where they may get the assistance and resources they require to heal. However, it's worth noting that there's a lot of debate within the criminal justice system about the effectiveness of drug courts. It's not certain whether the facts back up Judge Gaul's assertions. While some people faced drug court and wound up back in jail, others were able to finish drug court and get over their

He might have sought to defend the cops because he was worried about how the public would view them. However, some people who disapproved of the actions of the police officers may have found his remarks to be callous or contemptuous. In fact, I found myself getting very irritated as I listened to how he was responding to the questions. Particularly at the fact that he was unable to think of a means for the police to advance for the benefit of the general population and the department as a whole. Additionally, according to Steve Loomis, the responding police officers were acting in self-defense and adhering to policy. Erimius, he said, was acting harshly, and the cops had no alternative but to use force to get him under control. Which doesn't exactly line up with the impression Erimius gave me as a listener through his behavior. However, other people might not have found his arguments appealing because they believed that the officers overreacted to the situation and should have attempted to defuse it. Steve Loomis might have the opinions and perspectives he does because he has an intimate interest in defending the reputation as well as the goals of the police department. As a union representative, he may feel that it's his duty to defend the actions of the officers involved in the incident, even if others disagree with their