The requirement that the prosecution prove mens rea means that criminal punishment won’t be applied to a person unless he or she was culpable for his or her act. Culpability arises when the defendant either knew what they were doing or what they were risking, or when they failed to reach a standard of behaviour expected of normal people. For example; Suppose A stabs B, A therefore will be culpable of murder, if his actions were intentional, or manslaughter. However what if A did not know what he was doing? Consider that when A stabbed B he did so under a delusion that he was in fact fighting with a monster of fictional sorts, and that this said delusion was caused by a mental disorder.
This one-sided story by the narrator, Montresor, leads to a suspenseful conclusion not only that Fortunato’s insults perhaps are minor, but also that Fortunato may not recognize the issues at all. This lack of evidence and unrealistic friendship lead readers to believe that Fortunato does not deserve to be buried alive. Montresor could be just a sadistic character who wants to murder his enemy for
By telling the truth that they were not witches, the court and townspeople would punish them. The only two options the person who being accused had was lying that they were a witch and then telling the names of others, or telling the truth of not being a witch and die. As a result, John Proctor thinks about telling a lie and confess because there is no point in throwing his life away when he has already committed many sins. “I cannot mount the gibbet like a saint. It is a fraud.
It is implied that Montresor is crazy and could have imagined the insult towards him. The fact that he does not explain at all the reasons for his actions indicates that he might not have wanted to come across Fortunato's reaction, who would immediately start persuading Montresor that the insult never took place. Montresor murders an innocent person in a particularly cruel way inducing as much horror and desperation within the victim before death is possible. Thankfully, the author omits how Fortunato feels in his last moments when there is either not enough air or water after his prison is
After Valjean let Javert go he couldn’t understand why someone he thought was so bad would do something so nice for someone who could easily be considered an enemy in the eyes of a criminal like valjean. This thought ate and
Bernard Mandeville believed that man is “extraordinarily selfish, cunning, and stubborn" (Mandeville). However, he ignores the fact that even if man is selfish, that man will stand in the way of danger, to save another person. Man will put another human before him, fully accepting the dangers and costs that will come with it. Twain exemplifies this trait in human nature with Tom, once again. Tom is called to testify for a falsely accused man that has been charged with murder, and Tom was at the site, unnoticed when it happened.
Meursault has no motive for killing the Arab and does so anyway. His lack of morality encourages this irrational behavior whereas if he had moral consciousness, he would be impeded from committing a murder. Society nonetheless attempts to fabricate or impose rational explanations for Meursault’s irrational actions because the idea that things happen for no reason and sometimes have no meaning is disruptive and threatening to
Seuss in the very popular book Horton Hears a Who. While life is forming it is unjust to stop it because….? It is as if you are asking a murderer why they killed someone, and they respond because it was out of convenience because the person they killed was a bother, or they had some type of conflict with that person. Anyone speaking to this person would say that their reasoning does not make sense, and it is clear that those reasons are not sufficient. That person’s life was not theirs to take.
Murder is the unlawful planned out killing of one human being by another, which in society is seen as an action that is morally incorrect and should not be done; yet can this act under any circumstance ever be justified? In the Shakespearean play, Julius Caesar, a group of conspirators are against Caesar's rise in power and popularity, so they assassinate him to prevent Cesar from ascending greatly in power and becoming a tyrant. Even though the conspirators had the “good of Rome” in their intentions, Caesar's murder was not justified. Caesar was murdered under the pretext that he was gaining too much support and would eventually become a danger, and his “ambitious” behavior. Therefore, Caesar was murdered out of jealousy, morally incorrect
Oedipus’ pride will not let Laius’ killer get away with an unjust murder. Oedipus, believing the murderer is a sneaky and unjust man, tries to talk to him even though he is nowhere in sight. Unwittingly, his efforts are useless because Laius’ killer is Oedipus all along. The scene contributes to his downfall because as he searches for Laius’ killer he unravels the spark that will contribute to the flame. Before discovery of his personal truth he finds himself searching for lost answers all because of his pride nagging him
You can 't just sit there knowing that someone you know is going to be murdered and not do anything about it, you would have that on your mind. I don 't believe Jay 's story at all, he is a sketchy person who can 't make his mind up about certain things. He keeps changing details in his stories, and his alibi doesn’t seem right to me. Jay keeps going back and forth on his word and how things actually happened. He doesn’t seem trustworthy to me.
In the book of mice and men by john steinbeck killing lennie is never justified. killing lennie is not right because of the problems lennie had. not justifying george is basically letting him get away with it which is not right he needs to to be caught. george never should have killed lennie because it 's not like Lennie can handle his problems. So therefore in this situation killing should be justified.
Whereas one cannot find justification in George’s actions, In contrast George reason would be the ten commandments it says thou shall not kill. Then again others may say they don’t believe in God. Second, George is not justified due to the Law. One example is that murder is murder and can’t be undone. Even though others may say they have an excuse for the murder.
How would you feel if your best friend killed you? This is the controversial ending of John Steinbeck 's novel Of the Mice and Men. Currently there is a debate over the appropriateness of the book ending and whether or not students should read it. The character’s choice to murder was not justifiable because it goes against the law, religion, and obviously pre planned. First the law says that anybody that murder will get charged for it.
However , there are many controversies going on whether the former criminals to should have the right to vote again. Should they get the right to vote again? No, they should not because ex-cons have shown irresponsibility and dishonesty, they have violated the the rights of others, and they do not value society. According to, Voting Rights: 6 reasons Ex felons should not vote by Jerry Shaw, “Ex prisoners prisoners have demonstrated dishonesty and irresponsibility in their character by committing a crime, especially a serious crime and