Frankenstein's Creature on Trial

So, we put Frankenstein's Creature on Trial.

This was a completely new and different way to think about close reading, group work, and classroom presentations. It was also a unique take on my debate structure. It was fun!

***********************************

At the end of one class, I handed out these descriptions of the groups, and divided people into pairs. I also used our University Learning Services program to create groups and give the students access to a discussion boards and a blog, in case they wanted to communicate in different ways.

Frankenstein’s Creature on Trial:

To what extent is the creature at fault for his crimes?

A judge in the judicial system takes into account the circumstances of a person’s life when they have committed crimes; there are several circumstances in the creature’s short life that would excuse many of his behaviours. To what extent is Victor Frankenstein at fault for his creature’s actions? On March 20^th, we will put Frankenstein’s creature on trial for the crime of murder.

You will be divided into one of the following groups:

The Prosecution team. The Prosecution team works on behalf of the crown. What are the crimes that the creature is guilty of? Show how the creature commits his crimes in full knowledge of his actions, and that he should not be excused for his crimes just because his creator neglected him. Does sentience also grant an assumption of morality? Do we rely on parents to impart a sense of that morality? Your statement should be at least 7 minutes long.

The Defense team. The Defense team works on behalf of the creature. Part of your defense should be in showing how the creature’s life – being “raised” by Victor Frankenstein – created his circumstances for him. The other part of your defense could also include casting doubt on the creature’s guilt by making the case that Victor is the real culprit. Finally, how much does it matter that the creature is not technically human? Laws are created for humans; is the creature above / beyond the law? Is being sentient enough to grant him status as someone who is bound to human laws? Your statement should be at least 7 minutes long.

The Jury. The Jury should prepare by re-reading pg 217-221 (starting with “That is also my victim!” (217) and ending with “My spirit will sleep in peace; or if it thinks, it will not surely think thus. Farewell” (221). Consider this passage to be the creature’s last statement on the case. Does this persuade you that Frankenstein or the creature is more at fault? If it persuades you of the creature’s fault, how does it align with the content and tone of his earlier statements regarding his sense of self? Ultimately, you must make a decision together about the creature’s guilt based on the prepared statements you will hear.

The Judges. The Judging team must prepare by creating a set of questions to help you determine the guilt of the creature. You can ask the prosecution and the defense team five questions each, for a total of ten questions. At the end of their prepared statements, they must answer the questions you pose to them. Consider both the law as well as your level of discretion: you may choose to empathize with the creature, but the defense and the prosecution team will help you decide how much to empathize with them. The jury will give you their decision after which your team will have the last word on the creature’s guilt. You will have five minutes to confer with one another, and create a Reason for Decision, which you will present to those present at the trial.

The students had a week to prepare their group.

I gave the students further practical instructions on a slide on the day of the trial:

The Prosecution team actually went through the entire text and made a list of the criminal offences that the creature would be guilty of (there was a moment of discrepancy where there was some question as to what legal system was being used (Vienna?  Canada?) and in what year (1818? 1831? 2015?)) But once they got over that discussion, I discovered that this activity had forced them to do a different sort of careful and thorough close reading. Furthermore, all of the teams were confronted with the creature's morality vs the ethics of his society, which is a frequent discussion amongst Frankenstein experts and scholars. The Judges' team asked some extremely probing and substantive questions. And the Jury - who was, by necessity, fairly quiet throughout - gave a very thoughtful reason for their decision. If I do this again, I will find a more active role for the team that is on the Jury. Overall, however, I was impressed with how well this activity worked.