It is entirely true that Montresor was getting revenge against Fortunato for the insults that he has given him. However, the problem is that, we the audience do not know to what extend the insults were and how bad were they. We are left to wonder if the insults were entirely just horse play which usually occurs between two friends, or were they actually insults being addressed towards Montresor and his family. Some might even argue that he was insane, and the fact is that Montresor was not really on his death bed. But that he was actually gleaming and he was boosting his crime to somebody because he felt proud of the crime that he committed.
Finally, my last suggestion would be to alter the labels of ex-felonies for minor violations, and changing how to use the criminal check box. Once an ex-convict paid for their time in prison for inferior crimes we should not label then as a felon, so that they can apply for jobs and do not have to check on the felony box when applying for a job. Consequently, ex-convict could get a better chance to be hired, so that they truly have a chance to readjust in the society. People that who are labeled as a felon have a hard time applying for jobs, housings, and getting food stamps, making it impossible to survive and to provide for their family. They can lose their kids, their home, and become homeless and in other cases going back to jail.
Felon Disenfranchisement has emerged as popular and topic in recent political agendas. Felon Disenfranchisement is defined as, “The removing of a felon’s civil liberties while incarcerated and/or past their prison sentence” (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2016). Generally, disenfranchisement is seen as a retributive form of punishment. Arguably, the rights that are removed from felons during disenfranchisement are seen as essential to the American Identity. Supporters argue that people that break the law should not partake in the process of it and argue that the potential loss of these basic American civil liberties can provide deterrence.
Is Plea bargaining ethical If you could take a deal that would swap your prison sentence from 20 to 16 years even if you were guilty would you? What if you and the defense lawyer didn’t know what the evidence was yet. What if the prosecutor said you can either take the deal or you can go away for as long as i can get? These occur in the plea bargaining system. Plea bargaining is an unethical practice because it can force innocent men to plead guilty, defense lawyers often can't see the evidence in time to advise their client, and it lets criminals get away with a lighter sentence than they should.
This shows that she is trying to change the rules to benefit herself now that she knows that she is the chosen one. At first, the reader doesn’t see why it’s so bad to be chosen because their thinking is of a modern-day lottery when the winner will receive a huge cash prize, but this is certainly not the case. It is revealed that the “winner” of the lottery will be stoned to death by everyone in the town. In fact, this is related to karma and how wrongdoing will result in payback. The ending puts an effect on the reader because it can be seen why she was stoned, due to her greediness, and total selfishness, that results in her death.
When the jury trial process is replaced with plea negotiations, we lose trust and reliability in the system. When we give efficiency that the plea bargain has provided power, it comes at a substantial cost. People who are indeed innocent of the crimes they were convicted have now been influenced into pleading guilty for the sake of efficiency. Not to mention the collateral consequences that accompany a person when they plead out. It also undermines the reliability of convictions in general (Gilchrist, 2011).
The hero commits or fails to commit actions that hurt other people. These are characters with moral flaws, and the stories drive toward the moment when the hero uncovers his or her moral blindness. While Ransom Stoddard is depicted as a coward, he attempts to face this in the duel against Liberty Valance. While this would have been the moment Stoddard faces this flaw, it ends up being taken away from him with the help of his “partner in crime” Tom Doniphan. Indeed, Stoddard would have most likely died in that duel if it weren’t for Doniphan’s’ help, Stoddard still ended up being the coward he always was, and ends up being rewarded for it as being elected as the towns representative in Washington,
Also, anyone who thinks of a lottery would expect winning something like cash, but in this case, the winner gets a reward of death. “This isn 't fair, this isn 't right.” This quote shows the point when the irony unfolded, and the reader became shook. Also, anyone who thinks of an exam would think getting good grades, and being proud of oneself, but the exact opposite happens. Dickie, the son, gets killed due to him getting good grades on the test, which was something no one expected. A point at where the irony unfolds is when the government says, “ ‘You may specify by telephone,’ the voice droned on, ‘ weather you wish his body interred by the government or would you prefer a private burial place?’ “ This was when the reader discovered the harsh reality that he died due to his intelligence exceeding the law.
Both “the lottery” by Shirley Jackson and “first they came” by Martin Niemoller deal with following the crowd can have disastrous consequences. If you follow the crowd sometimes we can get in trouble for someone else. And if someone is doing something stupid and they told you to come or do it with them you can get in trouble for that to. “The lottery” had some sketchy history be hide it. Some people think if you win a lottery you win a prize like money or a new car but not in this story if you win the lottery you win death.
The Knight put a lot of time and energy making his tale one that could be a reflection of societal norms, whereas the Pardoner showed no modesty in weaving his moral into the story. The Knight’s moral of allowing lust to replace loyalty is much more harsh and self-admitting than the Pardoner’s simple moral, “greed is bad.” In the first round of the storytelling competition of, “The Canterbury Tales,” the Knight’s Tale is the definitive winner. The Pardoner’s Tale may have held its own had the storyteller not proclaimed (and bragged about) his hypocrisy before the story even began. The Knight simply wanted to win more. He put more into his story than the Pardoner did.
This may be helping the debtor but by causing the creditor to lose money it could cause a chain reaction. Law 23 causes the city mayor or territory governor to lose a large sum of money.The law 23 is"If the robber is not caught,the man who has been robbed shall formally declare whatever he has lost before a God,and the city and the territorial mayor or mayor of the district has been committed shall replace for him whatever he has lost." This meaning the mayor must pay for some other person mistakes. The robber is left and could escape while the mayor and city
This is certainly a conflicting issue. While it is fair to value the welfare of law abiding citizens over the welfare of convicted felons, placing restricting on felons presents the issue of those felons lacking the ability to become a contributing member of society. Like you mentioned, that can provide the push needed for them to return to crime rather than working towards a steady life of their own. Further research into the costs and benefits of such restrictions is necessary to determine whether these types of restrictions actually do benefit society overall like they intend to.