After you are done close reading and annotating the text, you are to use the sentence the sentence prompters to compose your constructed response. You are then to evaluate the response of TWO peers. Your evaluation should be critical in nature and should discuss ALL parts of the response. Everything cant be correct, so your job is to help them improve their analysis and writing by finding mistakes and discussing those mistakes in a respectful tone and manner. Your response should be a minimum of THREE sentences. |
Ashanti Jackson
10/18/2016 04:09:24 pm
Murphy’s central idea is convicting fourteen year olds (kids). Murphy develops his central idea
Damoli Mcintyre
10/18/2016 05:04:00 pm
I think you should've stated that he compared and contrasted two teen crimes. You should take out sentence 3 because it's like your restating the same thing. How did he show the difference between the two cases, you should just say that the author contrasted the two court cases.
Taleesha
10/18/2016 05:21:04 pm
I agree with Demoli, you should tell how they where contrasted and compare. The fact that it one was done on purpose and the other accidenta, lines 5 -6. Throughout the response you repeated alot, like line 4 and 3, the words compare and contrast, and the two cases. You can find other words to use. Dr. Attis said all 3, you only did one, that's why it felt repeated. It was not bad, you did well on the one example you had and connected it to the centeal idea.
Timya Harden
10/18/2016 06:31:55 pm
Instead of puttin convicting 14 year olds just put convicting kids maybe,
jalisa
10/18/2016 09:22:40 pm
You should tell us the readers what the kids did so other feel the way you feel when you said he unfols the central idea by comparing and contrasting you should tell what did he compare and contrast .Was it factual evidence that he killed his teacher on purpose if so you should list them I dont know if your paper look like that cause it was double spaced but it looks weird but your central idea was on point and your layout to get into detail was correct
Ashanti Jackson
10/19/2016 05:26:36 pm
ohhh.I get what yall mean but i did conmtrast and compare...ohh wait i see i
Taleesha Devine
10/18/2016 05:09:18 pm
The central idea for “Convicted at 14,” is convicting teen. The author Patrick Murphy expressed his thoughts, of convicting teens by giving examples, explaining different point of views, and listing solutions. To begin, whether or not teens should be convicted, the author describes two cases of 14-year-olds that were convicted and sentenced to life in prison (Murphy, par.2). Two different crimes, accidental and second-degree murder, were compared on how they were unalike, yet have the same consequence. The author is able to show how the system does not know what to do when it comes to minors committing heinous crimes. Convicting teens is difficult because accidents happen but it is wrong to let them off with no consequences. Moreover, Murphy explains two point of views and the consequences of both. The author list the limitation of teens to show, for those who push for the harsh punishment for delinquents, that charging a minor as an adult, when they are not, is contradictory. They do not have the same privileges such as being able to drink, drive or vote(Murphy, par.5). The other side of this argument, those who want a leeway for minors, do not consider the seriousness of the crime or the child themself, what if they are crazy or a sociopath (Murphy, par. 6). Lastly, Murphy listed and explained solutions that would make reasonable conviction when it comes to convicting teens. When it comes to weather or not juveniles should be charge as an adult, change the person who decides the charges. In fact Murphy asserts, “juvenile court judges, not prosecutors,” (paragraph 7). The author also gives the suggestion of having multiple hearings and sentences. Both sides of the court would provide evidence and a new testimony, giving the option to the court to keep the given sentence or reduce it(Murphy, par.7). To conclude, the author developed the central idea, convicting teens, by giving examples, explaining different point of views, and listing solutions.
Kenya Gibson
10/19/2016 04:03:00 pm
I agree with Taleesha about how the author's central idea and the details. I also agree how the author should be charged as adults, depending on the crime. I think the author should use the same judges on the kids as the adults.
Ta.De.Gu
10/19/2016 04:08:32 pm
Your reply was not critiquing, just agree with the author and what i wrote. Please try again.
Kenya Gibson
10/19/2016 04:16:20 pm
What the kids do for them to be charged as an adult. I do think you are correct, I think kids and adults should have the same judge. Why do the one side want the kids in jail and the other do not.
Ta.De.Guy
10/19/2016 06:14:04 pm
Kenya comment 2
Damoli Mcintyre
10/18/2016 06:14:35 pm
Convicted at 14 Constructed Response
Ashanti jackson
10/19/2016 05:28:21 pm
I think you should just put convicting and giving kids severe consequences for the first sentence.
Taylor
10/19/2016 06:22:32 pm
In lines 11-21, I think you should have ordered/worded what Nathanial did and what he was charged with differently. You're trying to say too much. What does two teens with two different cases have to do with the legal system being confused?
Taylor
10/18/2016 06:14:43 pm
Murphy’s central idea is convicting children. Murphy developed his central idea by describing how two fourteen year olds committed a serious crime, and got sentenced up to 25 yearhs to life in prison. In the text, Murphy first describes two antidotes that are about a “14-year-old who was convicted yesterday of second-degree murder for his killing of his English teacher” (paragraph 1), and “another 14-year-old in Florida” that was sentenced to “life in prison for killing a young playmate” (paragraph 2). Next, Murphy lists the limitation of kids (teenagers), by explaining both sides of the argument saying that “because of their immaturity and skewed judgment, we limit children’s right to vote, drink, drive, join armed forces, marry and enter into contracts” (paragraph 5). The other side of the argument is describing that “those who argue for releasing the child at 18 or 21 ignore legitimate issues of punishment and deterrence” (Murphy, paragraph 6). This shows that one side of the argument is with the limitation of children that also includes letting children go to juvenile detention until the child is 18 or 21, and then releasing them into prison, and the other side of the argument saying that if not punished realistically then the chances are that the child could go out and kill more people. The author then develops his central idea by listing solutions explaining the benefits proposed for new trials and convictions, “juvenile court judges, not prosecutors, should decide whether children charged with serious crimes should be charged as adults or minors,” child could receive a 20-year-sentence at age 14, but at 21, he would appear again in court for resentencing, and “rehabilitation” (Murphy, paragraph 7). Consequently, Murphy develops and unfolds the central idea of Convicted at 14 by describing 2 antidotes, explaining the limitation of children, and the listed solutions to a better Judicial System, to show that the system needs to develop a clear system in terms of how and when to try children.
Lauren Jones
10/19/2016 04:18:42 pm
"In the text, Murphy first describes two antidotes" I think you mean anecdotes???? Instead of using full blown quotes, you should paraphrase your evidence. "This shows that one side of the argument is with the limitation of children that also includes letting children go to juvenile detention until the child is 18 or 21, and then releasing them into prison" after this entence, instead of adding ",and", you should start a new sentence. You followed Dr. Atiss's constructed response example tp a T, and as result you have a pretty decent response.
Ashanti jackson
10/19/2016 05:43:40 pm
I agree with Lauren. I think you shuld just put life sentence instead of sentenced up to 25 years.
Timya Harden
10/18/2016 06:40:20 pm
Murphy’s central idea is convicting kids. Murphy develops his central idea by describing the differences between the two cases. In the text, Murphy first described the differences by telling us or explaining to us about how the 14 year old was convicted life in prison for killing his english teacher.(paragraph1) The author then develops his central idea by telling us about the other case when the 12 year old boy was wrestling with a playmate and accidentally killed her.(paragraph 2)The system is mostly confused , who convicts kids at 14, especially for wrestling? It's different if you killed your English teacher because it was intentional. Murphy also explains how kids have limitations, they cant control what they do because i dont think that he was planning to kill her and kids have limmited things that they can do. Consequently, Murphy develops and unfolds the central idea of convicting kids by explaining and showing us the difference of the two cases and how they were convicted.
Timya Harden
10/18/2016 06:41:06 pm
I know it was stupid :)
Laurennnnnnnn Hester
10/19/2016 10:35:21 pm
Your response is not stupid. It is not perfect , but not stupid. One thing that you could revise would be the way you have stated your central idea.(Be more scholarly). Likewise, in lines 5-6 of your response, by stating "The system is mostly confused , who convicts kids at 14, especially for wrestling? It's different if you killed your English teacher because it was intentional." you are not following the RL3 format. In line 6 of your response, you stated "Murphy also explains how kids have limitations,", following this you should have listed the limitations.
Damoli
10/18/2016 07:16:16 pm
I dont think the central idea was convicting kids., he wasn't just talking about convicting kids. Add more to the central idea! You should choose which adjective you want to use. " telling" or "explaining" What were the differences between the cases??? How is the legal system confused?
Timya Harden
10/18/2016 10:29:15 pm
He obviously was talking about convicting kids 🤔 Because in class Dr.Attis said it 😉
Timya Harden
10/18/2016 10:32:10 pm
I said how they were confused because kids have limitations‼️
jalisakearse
10/18/2016 09:15:53 pm
I think that you should make the central idea sentence longer and maybe detail it more and when you. said he explained or told its like the same world so just use one descriptive word also u did good by stating the textual evidence but you should take out the part when you said he explained his central idea again in the next story you should list some of the limitions in your own words to let us know what your talking about
Timya Harden
10/18/2016 10:30:40 pm
I put both because telling doesnt sound good that's why I put telling or explaining 😁
Taylor
10/19/2016 07:57:41 pm
Explain why the system is mostly confused. Murder is murder and anyone who has committed a crime such as that will/would be arrested immediately (after research and stuff :P). I understand that it is your opinion about murder...but in reality...murder trials just don't get juvenile detention.
Damoli McIntyre
10/18/2016 06:55:24 pm
Convicted at 14 Constructed Response
T.Devine
10/18/2016 09:57:38 pm
Your second peice of key point "The author is able to show us that the legal system doesn't have a clue what to do with teens being committed of crimes and their consequences" you never told how the athuor developed it at all and gave no evidence. In line 6 you used the same thing as an explaination then in the next sentence as a key statement. You should get a new key idea or explaination. Your paper was great you had your key points then explained them to connect to the centeal idea.
Damoli Mcintyre
10/19/2016 04:51:22 pm
I meant to say Convicted, I did give evidence for both details. try again
Taleesha^×^
10/19/2016 09:52:19 pm
Demoli reply
Kenya Gibson
10/19/2016 08:30:51 am
Murphy’s central idea is convicting Kids at age 14. Murphy develops his central idea by describing how the two teens got convicted. In the text, Murphy first describe if the teens should be convicted. The author, Patrick T. Murphy, describes the difference in the two sides, one side is believing the teens should be arrested and the other saying that the teens should not be arrested ( paragraph 5 and 6). The author then develops his central ideas by explaining the limitation of kids. Murphy’s explains both sides of the argument, if it was an accident or if it was on purpose ( Paragraph 5 and 6). Consequently, Murphy develops and unfolds the central ideas of convicted at age 14 by describes the difference in the two sides and Murphy explains both argument to show that the court system need to develop a clear terms of how and when to trail kids.
Lauren Jones
10/19/2016 04:12:24 pm
As in the example Dr. Attis showed, you should list all of the key ideas you were using in a sentence similar to a thesis, such as, "Murphy develops his central idea by (List 3 key ideas)". You should also reread and correct your response since there are a few gramattical errors within it. The evidences you gave, "Murphy first describe if the teens should be convicted" and "Murphy’s explains both sides of the argument", more or less mean the same thing, so I recommend that you use other examples of evidence to avoid being redundant in your response.
jalisa
10/19/2016 08:35:22 am
Do you think a child should go to jail? Many says it depends on the crime how about you ? Well Murphys central idea is to compare the difference between children getting trialed for serious cases and the effects and concerns about it . At the same time he talks about how and why other people feel about the situation and what are some of the consequences took into action! Murphys gives the reader which is us two stories with two different scenarios of kids committing adult like crimes and getting real strict consequences for there actions that were mistakes. The Central idea gives further detail to how others feel such as paragraphs 5 and 6 states and facts about how people see the situation in different ways. In paragraph 5 sentence line 2 it says “they ignore the fact that these are children” To me I agree because there certain limitations you give a child but when something goes wrong u wanna forget about the limitations and give them serious consequences. By judging the trial of the case no one really knows the exact consequences because the law doesn't have a rightful way to convict a child but yet again they still do. This passage strongly suggests that they find a decent way to apply punish!sent to a child and it should be a world wide session to list possible solutions in any way that's a constructive order . So I feel that Murphy's way of comparing and giving antidotes,decisions,facts was helpful and brought attention to the situation at hand.
Arquria
10/19/2016 06:38:12 pm
I believe you should change up the central idea and u didn't follow the format
Taylor
10/19/2016 07:51:14 pm
Why are you yelling at the person that reads line 4...rude much? You could've listed some of the limitations of children. What do you mean by "the law doesn't have a rightful way to convict a child but yet again still do", I think you should explain this in your summary. Oh and stop using exclamation marks!
Shaunteria Saylor
10/21/2016 07:57:34 pm
I believe that your response would be better if you followed the formant and used the graphic organizer give to us to sort your ideas into a correct honor's student response. I also believe some of the wording you used made the response more personal for example "To me I agree because there certain limitations you give a child but when something goes wrong u wanna forget about the limitations and give them serious consequences." To conclude, you did noy site were you took the evidence you provided from.
Shaunteria Saylor
10/21/2016 08:00:22 pm
I noticed in my last comment there were some grammatical issues. I believe that your response would be better if you followed the formant and used the graphic organizer given to us to sort your ideas into a correct honor's student response. I also believe some of the wording you used made the response more personal for example "To me I agree because there certain limitations you give a child but when something goes wrong u wanna forget about the limitations and give them serious consequences." To conclude, you did not site were you took the evidence you provided from.
Arquria
10/19/2016 02:21:02 pm
Arquria Hughes
Kenya Gibson
10/19/2016 04:09:40 pm
I don't thinks the central idea is limitations on kids, I think the central idea is convicting kids at 14. I think the teens can be charged as adults. What are some of the others reasons.
Laurennnnnnn Hester
10/19/2016 10:20:49 pm
Your response, although not completely incorrect does have some flaws. One being that you stated "People contradict the limitations of children, for example, they cannot drink alcohol, drive, vote, and etc. so, how can they be tried as an adult.". This explanation does not follow the RL3 format. Another being that in lines 4 and 7 of your response, you misspelled "develops". Throughout your response, you also did not cite your evidences. You do, however, develop a well developed central idea.
Lauren Jones
10/19/2016 04:01:50 pm
Murphy’s central idea is convicting minors for serious crimes. Murphy develops this central idea by explaining whether or not a 14 year old should be convicted for life under a murder charge, describing the limitations of children, and providing possible solutions for child incrimination. In the text, Murphy first explains if 14 year old Nathaniel should be convicted for life for the murder of his English teacher by describing two anecdotes that describe the differences of Nathaniel’s case with another which is quite similar (para 1-2). The author then develops his central idea by describing the limitations of children by providing examples of said limitations that further explain the argument. The list includes being able to vote, marry, drink, or drive until you are considered an adult (Murphy, para 5). Additionally, the author provides solutions for the argument by listing his possible solutions that explain the benefits of a new way of trying minors (Murphy, para 7-8). Consequently, Murphy develops and unfolds the central idea of Convicted at 14 by explaining if a 14 year old should be convicted for life, describing the limitations of minors, and providing necessary solutions for child incrimination to show that the American judicial system should develop a clear system of how and when to try children.
Taleesga D.G. T.Devine.G. T.D.Guy
10/19/2016 10:03:10 pm
Your response is 👍 geat, you followed the constructed response format precisely. For your last key detail, the author is giving solution. You should pull a solution and explain how it benefits teen convictions. You know like you did for the other ones.
Laurennnnnn Hester
10/19/2016 10:08:58 pm
The central idea the Murphy develops involves whether there is justice in convicting minors for serious crimes. This central idea is developed by Murphy using two anecdotes to introduce two sides of the argument. In the text, Murphy first describes the story of Nathaniel Brazill, a fourteen year old convicted for the murder of his teacher.(Paragraph 1)This includes him indirectly comparing it to the story of Lionel Tate.The author then develops his central idea by explaining the fact that the legal system has not found an efficient way to charge minors for serious crimes.(Paragraph 3)Murphy then supports this claim by listing limitations that are placed on minors within in society. These limitations include minors being prohibited from, voting, drinking driving, and marrying. (Paragraph 5)All in all, by comparing two anecdotes, explaining the fact that the legal system has not found an adequate way of charging minors, and listing the limitations of minors, Murphy develops a central idea dealing with whether or not there is plausible justice in charging minors for serious crimes.
Areyona Hurt
10/20/2016 10:19:52 am
Are’yona Hurt
Shaunteria Saylor
10/21/2016 07:50:04 pm
I feel your response is somewhat correct although you should try using the Distinguished student sample source to give your response a more scholarly tone. Also you need to give three evidences and explanations when doing these responses.
Shaunteria Saylor
10/21/2016 07:46:14 pm
Shaunteria Saylor
Damoli Mcintyre
10/27/2016 09:02:19 pm
Ashanti Jackson
10/28/2016 11:00:52 am
The central idea in the text, “Boy who Killed Teacher is Found Guilty of Murder,” focuses on Comments are closed.
|
Dr. AttisArchives
November 2016
Categories |