Although Perry is responsible for the murder of four innocent people, Perry’s actions do not reflect on who he is as a person because he is easily influenced, therefore; showing how easily people can be pressured into doing something they would not typically do. Dick, a violent, cold-hearted, manipulator, has molded Perry into the person he is today. As Perry is a follower, Dick has taken advantage of that by turning Perry into the cold-blooded killer he is today. Capote displays Dick’s manipulation of Perry through symbolism to make evident that while Perry did pull the trigger on four innocent people, although the fault does not entirely lay on him, as he was taken advantage of by Dick. As Capote gives insight to Dick’s viscous personality, he symbolizes Perry to further display how Dick manipulates him.
In the novel, In Cold Blood, Truman Capote chose his words in a subjective manner. Capote inaccurately described many characters in his novel. He based his writing on his feelings and emotions rather than facts and evidence. Capote characterized Richard Hickock, Perry Smith, and Bonnie Clutter falsely. Capote described Richard Hickock as a bloodthirsty, violent person yet he did not actually kill any of the Clutters.
By writing this book from the perspective of the killers Truman Capote gave an insight into the minds of the killers, something not commonly experienced. There has been speculation from people that wish to take In Cold Blood off the shelves of libraries because they do not feel it is appropriate. In
This reminds us of the epic atmosphere, where man battles against man, and where stable institutions that are supposed to regulate their actions are absent. However, despite their presence in modern American world, Mario Puzo denies their role or importance in the lives of his characters. In his book The Godfather and American Culture (2002), Chris Messenger drew a connection between Puzo’s The Godfather and ancient epics in terms of themes and characters. His study was based on critics and psychoanalysts that have attempted to bridge the novel and the epic together. To name few, the critic George Lukacs, for instance, “sees the survival of the epic in the personalized tradition of the ‘epic individual’, the hero of the novel, driven to an ‘autonomous life of interiority’ when an ‘unbridgeable chasm’ has been created between world and consciousness.” (233).
He says "Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death. "He said that Pi has commited a crime and so should be punished. He concluded assertions are, of course, ahead of any duties that he had to discharge with relation to this case, but he implicated them in the case saying that Foster is still unaware of dangers implicit in the conceptions of the judicial office advocated. He concluded that the conviction should be affirmed. HANDY,
Giving sentenced defendants the option to die counter the thought of it being a murder and closer towards assisted suicide. Some people believe that a life sentence is worse than the death penalty, since it prevents the defendant from being considered a human being. Likewise Andy Martin says in his article, “In my imaginary trial of the future, the judge will not be “sentencing” at all. Or rather she will be uttering a sentence, but it is not a declarative assertion. There is no “the prisoner will be taken hence and thence conveyed etc.” It is an interrogative.
Athanasourelis’s article depicts Sam Spade’s individuality through his actions leading up to Brigid O’Shaughnessy’s conviction. Sam’s initial intentions are to help Brigid avoid the police. Upon coming to the conclusion that Brigid is the only suspect in the murder of Archer, Sam knows he has to turn her into the authorities. The article discusses that although it may seem as if Sam is acting justly, he is truly just turning Brigid in to avoid his own persecution for the crimes others committed. Hammett establishes Sam’s morals frequently throughout the novel by further describing his character as a “hard-boiled detective”.
Nearly everything Oedipus says reveals his lack of knowledge. Oedipus says, “Whoever murdered him may also wish to punish me” (139-140). In this one phrase, Oedipus shows the audience that he does not know who killed the king, for he would not come to punish himself. He says he will search out the answers “as if for my own father” (329), when ironically that is precisely what he is doing. When talking about the fate of the searched-for murderer, Oedipus says it will not be cruel.
He does this as to not raise any suspicion towards his actions or placate any scrutiny. Madness and insanity is the highlight in this story, there is a very superficial reason as to the death of Fortunato. These are the same characteristics of a psychopath killer. No reason besides what the psychopath believes is right. This leads into the next story by Edgar Allen
The author uses this retrospectivity to convey what his character could not grasp as the events were transpiring, but came to understand later on. Through these semi-epiphanies, Conrad accentuates the reality versus the preconceived notion of idealistic imperialism. By contrasting it, the author discredits the claim of imperialism as an altruistic enterprise, and characterizes it as a greed-centered operation. Marlow claims that the entire endeavor was simply “ robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind” (Conrad 8). This, however, is not an observation that would have been made previous to the voyage.
“It doesn 't deter crime, but merely cheapens human life and gives rise to more murders.” This is one of the many quotes that reflects Truman Capote’s view on capital punishment. In writing his novel, In Cold Blood, Capote’s primary purpose is to convey his opposition towards the death penalty. Through the stylistic elements of rhetorical appeals, diction, and a selection of detail, Capote reveals the attitude he holds against this unreasonable form of justice. Tying into the events of the trial, Capote uses the rhetorical appeal pathos to highlight his point by appealing to the emotions and sensitivities of his audience. He argues an unfair trial by referring to the M’Naghten rule in which “Kansas law allowed nothing more than a yes or no