To Kill A Mockingbird Relationships

A casual encounter with a friend is an interaction that everyone has. It doesn’t normally have to be face-to-face but by letter, email, or a simple call! In Harper Lee’s, To Kill A Mockingbird, Scout interacts with her friend Dill over a letter to tell him about her school life, but in Reginald Rose’s play “12 Angry Men,” all the jurors interact with each other in person to decide on a verdict. The point is that people interact with others and there are a lot of different variations towards the person, but the top three are acceptance, rejection, or undecided mostly related to what they personally believe in. Throughout an interaction one of the results will be rejection. In Harper Lee’s novel, To Kill A Mockingbird, Atticus, a lawyer

Scout’s aunt was going to sojourn with them in Harper Lee’s novel, To Kill A Mockingbird. Scout didn’t want her racist Aunt Alexandra to stay with them, because she knew that as soon as she entered her open environmental life, Scout wouldn’t have control over what she does anymore. She was asking her father for permission to go over to their African American cook’s house, but her aunt opposed the idea to which Scout replied with, “I didn’t ask you.” (Lee 181). Scouts rude remark towards her aunt is a result of intolerance, because her aunt isn’t letting her do the things her father would normally approve of. Although as time progressed Scout began to like and understand why her Aunt Alexandra was the way she is. Once a terrible situation occurred Scout could see the true personality that was hidden in her aunt. Another example on how people can have an undecided opinion is the play, “12 Angry Men,” by Reginald Rose. The play’s conflict is whether or not the kid on trial is guilty or not guilty. Towards the end of the play Juror No. 3 decides to change his vote to not guilty because of the peer pressure within the jury table. Once everyone exited the room No. 3 makes sure No. 8 and them are alone in the room where he pulls out a knife and points it to No. 8’s abdomen but then retreats. As he is retreating the stage

There was a very popular case in the Supreme Court around the late 1980’s to the very early 1990’s regarding to an American flag to be burned in order to help prove a point throughout a political strike. The judges of the Court were having a difficult time deciding whether or not Gregory Lee Johnson, the person on trial, An article written by Ronald J. Allen, regarding his opinion on how the Court should have ruled was, “After all no one can seriously equate a prohibition on flag burning with the imposition of governmental orthodoxy in political speech… Each individual is to have the freedom to develop by his or her own lights, and not by the command of officialdom.” The verdict of the Supreme Court was that a flag to be burnt should be considered an act of freedom, which Allen agrees with. The vote was a five-four, which most of the judges sided with. Since the verdict was considered not guilty by one judged who based his vote solely on logos and how the country would see this act. Although mostly everyone inside that courtroom saw this act as unforgivable, with time they learned to accept it. America isn’t going to send Johnson to prison because he burned a flag because America was able to surpass hardships worse than flag burning, which is one way America accepts other different from them. The acceptance between daughter and father is shown as strong throughout