Q1: Why do you suppose the defendants did what their peer, Christian, had told them to do when they claimed they didn't look up to him?
Q2: The defendants stated different reasons as to why they committed the crime such as it being a joke, because the victim wasn't putting enough "effort" into their sport and for "culture". What do you believe to be the real intent of the crime?
Q3: Throughout the cases both Joshua and Matthew gave very simple and vague answers, yes and no. While Carlos kept trying to justify his actions using "culture". Do you feel the responses of each of the defendants was affected by each other's answers? Why or why not?
Q4: How do you feel about the parent's attitude towards the incident? Do you think their punishments were fair in this situation or too lenient? Why or why not?