If Romeo didn't kill himself he would have kept killing until all the Capulets are dead then he would start blaming his family for it then start killing them. When all the Montagues were dead he would start killing randomly until being caught and killed. The quote “Romeo, the love I bear thee can afford. No better team than this: thou art a villain.” , says Tybalt. Now what Tybalt is telling us is that Romeo has killed before but has only been sentenced to be a villain and not to death.
Romeo was in a hurry to see if his wife had really died, but in reality he just killed her, because it was fate. Some people might say that he didn’t have to kill himself he choose to do it, but in his world he did because he felt like he couldn’t live without her and if she was dead so was he. Some might also say that Romeo didn’t have to kill Tybalt, but they’re wrong because tybalt killed one of Romeo’s best friends and Romeo wasn’t just going to let that happen. In coming to conclusion it wasn’t free will that lead to the death of married couple, it was
Some people may say Lizzie iwas a wonderful woman. But was she really? For example, researchers make sense when they say Lizzie was to sweet of a woman to do such a thing,but she was actually a little crazy.In fact, she tried to by poison to kill her parents(Allard,2013). This shows that the people who think Lizzie is not crazy are wrong.In addition, despite the validity of investigators when they claim that Bridget Sullivan committing the crime,they miss the mark when it comes to the truth because all of the evidence points to Lizzie. As a matter of fact, Lizzie burned a dress with ' 'paint ' ' on it after the murders(Burning That Dress, 1893).
According to LiteraryDevices.net, a foil is a character who embodies the qualities that are in contrast to the qualities of another character with the objective being to highlight the traits of the other character. Jane Austen’s use of foils helps to bring out Emma’s flaws. Jane Fairfax, a woman of charm, grace, beauty and intelligence, is a perfect foil for Emma for several reasons. First, Jane and Emma were raised in different social backgrounds. Unfortunately, Jane’s parents passed away when she was a little girl.
The same setting in the play read: "...but I opened the door- this door and there in the rocker sat Mrs. Wright." (Glaspell). In "A Jury of Her Peers" the explicit details of the rocking chair tells the story of the woman the Minnie once was prior to her marriage to John. "How did she--look?"
An Irony is evident in the eighth chapter of The Great Gatsby, due to the unexpected situation, when Wilson kills Gatsby; this episode is Ironic because of multiple reasons; At first readers should have expected instead for Tom to kill him due to the fact that Gatsby was having an affair with Daisy. On the other hand Wilson thinks when he kills Gatsby that he is avenging his wife 's deaths but that 's simply a misunderstanding and finally the murderer is the only character who seems to care about conventional morality and rules of socially acceptable behavior. In chapter eight Gatsby states that: "He couldn 't possibly leave Daisy until he knew what she was going to do. He was clutching at some last hope and I couldn 't bear to shake him free" (155). Through this quote it is evident the deep affection and love.
However, some may say that Lady Macbeth is the culprit to Macbeth's descent to evil. Lady Macbeth is the one who convinced Macbeth to kill king duncan instead of waiting for the power of becoming king she wanted him to take it. Also, Macbeth never would have killed all the innocent people he did if he hadn't started with duncan. After killing King duncan Macbeth became paranoid which lead to the killing of banquo, his closest friend. If lady macbeth never convinced him to kill King Duncan nobody else would have died.
Elizabeth could have done an abundance of damage to John and Abigail. As a matter of fact, Abigail was the only one wounded, why was not the husband who cheated. Elizabeth could have also gone rouge crazy and killed multiple people for the betrayal she got from her husband. In the end, Elizabeth could have sabotaged a plentiful of people’s lives, but she did
There may not have been an officially stated reason that she killed him, but in my mind I believe she killed him out of the act of fright and love. She loved him so much and she was scared to death of losing him. In her mind at the moment, it seemed fit to kill the man. This was a violence that was shown through love and fear of being alone. Although, I think compromise would’ve turned out as a great Plan A before she killed
I found it dead.” Lennie did kill the mouse but he did not mean to. He doesn’t know his own strength and physical capabilities. At the end of the novel there is another death. Not only does Lennie die, but so did Curley’s wife. Lennie killed Curley’s wife, “And then she was still, for Lennie had broken her neck,” it was unintended, just like the mouse.
Obviously George Wilson, the person who pulled the trigger but how about Daisy Buchanan who lied to George to get “off the hook”? It can be determined that Daisy played a key role in the murder of Jay Gatsby and therefore should share the responsibility for his death. Daisy Buchanan is a self-serving and careless person who forgets her actions affect other people. She leads Gatsby on by telling him she is going to leave her
On the 14th of October 2011, Mr Rayney had submitted an application for a trial which only involved a judge without a jury present. This was due Mr. Rayney assuming that a strong bias had been manifested pre-trial as a result of the subjective publicity revolving around the death of his wife, Corryn(The Conversation, 2012). Therefore, the jury and any member of the public would already have preconceived views in favour of Mr Rayney being guilty of murdering his wife. The trial was successful for Mr Rayney where he was acquitted of murdering his wife. Similarly, this issue is somewhat common as it had also occurred in the case Evans v The State of Western Australia  WASCA 182, in which both appellants had made appeals after being convicted for murder.
Even if she wasn’t seen killing her husband in the beginning, in the eyes of the law, the evidence showed she did. So killing her husband in the end is the same crime. Simple, yeah? Some reasons why I could see the clause not working are because the husband is assuming a different