Hello there.

Mr. Barnsley here.

Great to see you today.

Thank you so much for joining me.

In today's lesson where we're gonna be diving deeper into "An Inspector Calls".

In today, we're gonna be having some really interesting discussions about punishment and justice.

You're gonna want to make sure you have a copy of the text at hand 'cause I'm gonna ask you to look for some evidence.

And this shouldn't be the first time that you have read "An Inspector Calls".

I'm gonna expect a bit of prior knowledge here, some knowledge of plot and characters.

All right, if you are ready to start then so am I.

Let's dive in.

Right then, let's have a look at today's outcome.

By the end of today's lesson, you are gonna be able to explain how Priestley portrays and challenges ideas around justice and punishment.

So there are five keywords we're gonna be keeping it out for.

The first two are ones that we saw in the outcome, justice and punishment.

What do they mean? Well, justice is the pursuit of fairness and the proper treatment of individuals within society.

And a punishment is a consequence imposed for wrongdoing, often to deter a future offences or promote change.

Now if something is punitive, then it's something that is intended to punish.

It's intended to inflict a penalty on someone.

Whereas rehabilitation, this is actually the process of restoring something or someone to a positive state, particularly through correctional or educational methods.

So we might see that some punishment is punitive, designed to incur a penalty for the person who's committed a crime.

Whereas, you might look at rehabilitative punishment, which is actually looking at rehabilitating the person who's committed a crime as part of their kind of the consequence of their actions.

And we're also gonna be talking about systemic issues and systemic issues that are deeply embedded into society.

They affect its social, political, or economic structures.

So let's keep an eye out for all of these keywords and see if we can use them in our own discussions and work later.

So there are two learning cycles in today's lesson.

Firstly, we're gonna think about how Priestley presents punishment and justice in his play, and then we're gonna do some evaluation.

So let's start by thinking about the presentation of punishment and justice.

So we know that punishment can be defined as being illegal, something that is enforced by law.

This is where consequences might be things like fines, imprisonment, community service.

These are all kind of legal forms of punishment.

But there's also this kind of personal punishment and this is where there are internal, so punishment that we put on ourselves internally or social repercussions that society might put on us.

These are things like guilt, shame, our reputation being ruined.

These are all personal forms of punishment.

Now I think it could be argued then that Priestley focuses much more on the personal punishment because this I think links more closely to moral accountability.

It highlights how individuals have to confront the emotional and social consequences of their actions.

And it means that we can't just rely on the legal system for justice.

You know, the play ends in a fairly unresolved way.

We don't know whether there will be any legal consequences for the characters.

To be honest, it'd be difficult for the law to impose legal consequences on some of the Birlings actions.

Whereas, Priestley very cleverly makes us focus on this personal punishment because it links more close to this moral accountability that he's aiming for.

So arguably, punishment can take different approaches leading to varying concepts of justice.

Okay, so justice is in this sense of fairness that we're all being kind of treated equally.

So we might talk about punitive punishments.

So think about what we're saying are keyword here, and this is focus on inflicting a penalty or suffering as some form of retribution.

So in this sense, justice is served when the wrongdoer experiences consequences that match the severity of their actions.

Whereas, if the punishment is rehabilitative, it's aimed at reforming the wrongdoer, changing them through education, through therapy or through other methods.

Now here, what does justice look like here? Well, it looks like the individual has been given the opportunity to change.

They've been able to reintegrate into society.

Potentially this change has been positive and they've been able to give back to society in a positive manner.

So let's have a think then.

Which approach to punishment do you think best links to Priestley's portrayal of justice, the justice that we see in "An Inspector Calls", and how does this reflect to his message about society? Do you think he's arguing for punitive or rehabilitative punishment and justice? All right, pause the video, have a think.

If you've got a partner, you can discuss with them.

Otherwise, you can just think through this independently, but over to you.

How was that? What ideas did you come up with there? Two of our Oak pupils gave us a go and we're gonna compare our answers to theirs.

So Lucas thinks that Priestley really aligns with this rehabilitative approach.

He focusing on change.

And we see this particularly through characters like Sheila and Eric who show how justice is about growth.

And actually this reflects Priestley's own belief in social reform.

That's what Lucas thinks.

Do you agree with him? What about Alex? Alex is gonna argue something different.

He argues that the inspector's psychological impact on the characters reflect a punitive approach to justice.

Again, Eric, we see this in.

He's described as breaking and distressed, which could suggest he's been punished with an internal penalty that matches the severity of his actions.

Yes, he's not been punished legally, but the turmoil that he goes through is a punitive punishment or a punitive approach to justice and it matches the crimes that he has committed.

What do you think, who do you agree with most? Do you agree with Lucas that Priestley is arguing for a rehabilitative approach to justice or Alex, where there is actually a punitive approach to justice? Or do you fit somewhere in between the two? All right, take a moment.

Pause, reflect on, and see whose ideas most align with yours.

But if there is anything that you see on the screen that you really like, this might be a great opportunity to make a note of it too.

Okay, true or false then.

Rehabilitative punishment suggests that justice is achieved through reform and personal growth.

Is that true or false? Pause the video, make your choice, and press play when you've got an answer.

Yes, that is true.

Well done if you said that.

Why is that true? Well, rehabilitative punishment focuses on the idea that people can change.

They can improve their behaviour.

So instead of just punitively punishing someone for their wrongdoing, we should emphasise.

If we put emphasise on education, it gives opportunities for personal growth and hopefully, it gives opportunities for these people to give back really positively to their communities, to society.

We see some psychological punishment here as well, and this is where psychological punishment uses guilt, regret, self-awareness to really force individuals to confront their own actions.

It focuses on internal suffering as a response to crimes rather than legal consequences.

And in this sense, justice is not in the legal retribution, but internal reflection and personal growth.

So this psychological punishment seems to be this kind of linked in some way to this retribution into rehabilitation because arguably, this is what leads in some cases.

The guilt, the regret leads in some cases to people making that personal growth.

So I want you to think about how does Priestley use psychological punishment in "An Inspector Calls" which characters experience it? All right, pause the video, have a think.

If you've got a partner, you can discuss with them.

But if you're working by yourself, don't worry, you can just think through this independently.

All right, over to you.

Pause the video, give it a go, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

Let's think about some of the things you might have said then.

So you might have been discussing how the inspector's questioning really forces the characters to confront their moral failings, including and this in kind of creates guilt, it creates regret.

You might have talked about Sheila and Eric.

I think these are the characters who experience the most emotional growth.

They learn the most from their mistakes and they're the ones who truly feel remorse.

You could also say how Priestley uses psychological punishment to show that justice is more than just legal consequences.

It involves personal change.

It involves moral responsibility.

So just putting this question out there.

In your opinion, do you think the inspector acts as a judge, as a reformer, someone who is trying to reform the characters or a manipulator, what do you think? Pause the video, have a think.

Discuss with a partner or just think through independently what are your thoughts.

Press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

I'd be really interested to know what you were saying there.

I think there's arguments for all of these.

I don't think there's a right or wrong way and I think, you know, when we look at multiple layers of interpretation, how we view the inspector, I think we could make arguments for all of these that he's there to judge the characters.

He's there to try and reform them, but he does that through manipulation from time to time.

All right, we're gonna move on to our first task then in today's lesson, and I want you to consider the following moments from the play.

Sheila's guilt, Eric's remorse, and Mrs. Birling's refusal to accept responsibility.

What I'd like to do is choose one of the moments above and answer the questions below using evidence from the text.

So how does the character react emotionally? Do they experience guilt, regret, or internal suffering? Does the character face consequences for their actions? If so, is it purely punitive, a penalty, or is it rehabilitative, a chance to learn and change? And has justice been served for this character do you believe? And that's over to you.

That's your opinion.

Why or why not? Okay, so you're choosing one character, Sheila, Eric, and Mrs. Birling, and then working through kind of these questions linking to punishment and justice.

All right, pause the video, give this a go, press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

How did you find that? Right, one of our Oak pupils, Jacob answered on the character of Sheila and her guilt, and this is what he said.

So he said, "Sheila is distressed by her actions.

Her emotional turmoil and self-reproach show she's deeply affected.

She states she cannot forget which links to the idea of psychological punishment through her internal suffering." He also mentioned in Act Three that Sheila recognises that things aren't the same as before.

She admits she's ashamed of the Birlings behaviour and suggests that her punishment is rehab.

This suggests, sorry, that her punishment is rehabilitative as she learns from her mistake and she seeks to change.

For the third question, he says, "In the legal sense, no, justice has not been served.

She faces no external punishment.

However, her guilt and her personal growth suggests that Priestley sees true justice as moral reckoning, not legal retribution." To what extent do you agree with what Jacob said? Why don't you pause the video, take a moment to reflect, and then press play when you're ready to continue? Okay, we're now gonna move on to the final learning cycle in today's lesson, evaluating Priestley's presentation of justice.

So Priestley was a socialist.

This means that he believed in collective responsibility, that we should all take responsibility for the society that we live in.

He believed in equality, fairness.

He believed in social justice.

He believed in wealth redistribution.

That kind of small numbers of people should not be holding most of the wealth while many people go without.

And he believed in workers' rights to be treated fairly, to be paid fairly, to have fair working conditions.

So arguably, we could say that Priestley social ideals align with his presentation of punishment and justice that we see in the play.

We see that perhaps Priestley is suggesting that true justice goes beyond legalities.

We've said this a few times now.

And actually what is urging to do is society to work collectively to make sure we are behaving morally and to reflect on our impact on everyone else.

To stop thinking of the individual.

To stop thinking selfishly, but to think about how our behaviour affects other people.

We also see that Priestley demonstrates that wealth protects the powerful.

He doesn't see that the legal justice system is one that is built on equality and fairness.

He sees it that it often fails and particularly, it fails the working classes.

He emphasises that justice should focus on moral reckoning and social change.

He's not saying that legal punishment shouldn't exist, but he feels that this is much less important to him than this idea of kind of moral reckoning and social change.

Now interesting connection here.

What is Priestley saying about wealth distribution? Well, I think we could suggest that he sees legal punishment actually doesn't address the systemic inequality.

This inequality that's been built into society through years and years and through systems and laws, and true justice requires reform.

It promotes fairness and it addresses societal cause of injustice.

And often that societal cause of injustice is the fact that there are a few people who have lots of wealth and there are many people who don't.

And that injustice in wealth we often see kinda represented in laws because those laws are often designed by people who have more power, have more wealth.

And I think we can definitely argue, we see this throughout the play, but particularly in the relationship between Mr. Birling and Eva.

It could be suggested that Priestley is critiquing exploitation of workers and show that actually true justice involves fair treatment, not just in the legal system but across all of society.

So I think we could say that Priestley could be suggesting that traditional justice fails to address systemic issues.

And this is emphasised in socialist ideals.

For example, in Act One, page 11, Mr. Birling assumes that the inspector is there because he needs his help with a warrant.

He doesn't consider for a moment that he might be involved in this crime.

This reflects how his status lets him evade accountability.

It critiques flaws in traditional justice.

In Act Three, the inspector repeatedly use this collective pronoun, we.

And this emphasises collective responsibility.

It could suggest that Priestley believes moral punishment rather than legal punitive.

That is what's gonna drive societal progress.

That is what is going to drive change.

So which of the following do you think best reflects Priestley's critique of traditional justice? Is it A, that legal justice is always fair and sufficient? Is it B, that moral justice, not legal punishment is the key to societal progress? Is it C, that social responsibility is irrelevant to justice or is it D, that the wealthy and powerful always receive the justice they deserve? A, B, C, or D.

Pause the video, have a think, and press play when you've got an answer.

Well done if that is B.

Of course, all the others, absolutely not.

Priestley is not saying that he thinks legal justice is always fair.

I know he certainly isn't saying that the wealthy and powerful always receive the justice they deserve.

Well done if you selected B there.

Okay, so Izzy, one of our Oak pupils made the following statement.

She said, "Priestley focuses on morality and personal punishment feels idealistic and therefore may not convince an audience that justice is truly served in the play.

Particularly as the actual crimes and the older Birlings remain unpunished." Really interesting idea here from Izzy.

Yeah, Priestley might have all of these great ideas of what he wants to tell us about punishment and justice, but actually we see that characters get away with it.

So are we supposed to believe that these characters have clear, you know, have felt punishment or justice has been served? What do you think? Do you agree with Izzy? And what you said do you agree with her and why? Pause video, have a think, and press play when you've got some ideas.

Welcome back.

I'd be really interested to see whether you agreed with Izzy or not.

Two of our Oak pupils did have a think about this as well, and let's see if they agreed with Izzy.

So Aisha said that she agreed with Izzy.

The inspector's moral approach doesn't lead to any legal justice.

Eva Smith's tragic fate goes unresolved.

Whilst Priestley uses the inspector to challenge traditional justice, actually the lack of tangible punishment means the message about true justice might be lost.

Do you agree with Aisha? Sam says, "Actually, I disagree.

The real punishment lies in their guilt and reflection, which Priestley portrays as more important than traditional justice.

The play isn't about legal consequences, it's about encouraging the audience to reflect on their own responsibility." Who do you agree with the most and why? Where did your opinion fall? Was it more in line with Asia, more in line with Sam, or somewhere in between? As ever, take a moment to reflect and if there's anything you see on the screen that you really like, now's time to make a note of it.

True or false then.

Priestley uses the character of Mr. Birling to show that legal justice is fair and accessible to everyone in society.

True, false.

Pause the video, have a think, and press play when you've got some answers.

Yes, well done.

You should have picked false there.

That is definitely false.

Why is that false? Well, Mr. Birling believes that his status protects him from accountability suggesting that the legal system is biassed to those who have wealth, to those who have power.

Right, we're onto the final task in today's lesson and you are gonna write a response to the following question.

How does Priestley use different forms of punishment to explore the concept of justice in "An Inspector Calls"? Things I want you to do, you should identify and explain how different types of punishment, e.

g.

, legal, moral, or psychological are used.

Use supporting evidence from the text and evaluate Priestley's message how he critiques ideas about punishment, justice, and society.

We've talked about so many interesting things here.

Now this is your opportunity to put it all together into a piece of really clear and concise writing.

Over to you.

I know you can do this.

Pause the video, give it a go.

Press play when you are done.

Welcome back.

How was that for you? I hope you've got a piece, a paragraph there that you are really proud of.

I know you've worked so hard in today's lesson, so I hope you managed to bring all of those ideas together.

Before we finish today, we are going to have a moment of self-reflection.

I'd like you to self-assess your work using the following questions.

Have you identified and explained how different types of punishment, e.

g.

, legal, moral, or psychological are used? Have you used supporting evidence from the text and have you evaluated Priestley's message and how he critiques ideas of punishment, justice, and society? All right, over to you.

Time for you to pause the video and take a moment to self-assess.

Okay, that is it.

We have reached the end of today's lesson and what a fantastic job you have done today.

You should be really proud of yourselves.

On the screen, you can see a summary of today's learning.

Let's quickly go through this together so you can feel really confident before you move on to your next lesson.

We learned that Priestley critiques legal justice as being biassed, showing how wealth and status often protect the powerful from consequences.

We've also learned the play highlights moral punishment as guilt and reflection shape true justice rather than legal penalties.

The inspector enforces psychological punishment and this really forces the characters to confront their moral failures.

Priestley presents justice as social responsibility, urging collective change over punitive measures.

And finally, Priestley suggests justice involves personal growth and moral reckoning.

It's not just about legal retribution.

Great work today.

You should be really proud of yourself.

I hope to see you in one of our lessons again in the future very soon.

See you all soon.

Bye-bye.