George was the balance, he needed to make sure no mistakes were committed for their American dream to be achieved. Lennie was a barrier to their American dream and their happiness. If Lennie had died from Curley’s hands, it would be a violent death and full of misery. When George executed Lennie, he prevented the further possible mistakes, agony, and the feeling of being terrified. George was not selfish, but caring to make sure that Lennie deserved a better death.
Prejean presents her case against capital punishment citing “killing is wrong, no matter who does it” and that personal responsibility is the only appropriate punishment for these “monsters” (Dead Man Walking). While Prejean argues this, Van Den Haag counters with “the criminal volunteered to assume the risk of receiving a legal punishment” and “the punishment he suffers is the punishment he voluntarily risks” (Van Den Haag 3). But through
In the end, George murdering his friend was well justified. Although, Lennie’s actions probably weren’t his fault, with him not being able to learn from his actions and remember that his own strength is too much for him that he became a threat. George, pained to do it, knew what was best for Lennie and other people/animals, and had to end his life. Overall, even though George had to make some pretty drastic decisions and someone’s life got taken away, it was all for the best and nothing bad will no longer happen and who knows, maybe George will get to live his
The author uses this craft move too help support the showing of a theme that wherever you are no matter how bad you have been in the past you are going to eventually be killed by a scythe because death is always lurking in your mind both literally and mentally. In addition to my previous thoughts, The author shows the bigger problem in the story when he states in the book “You see through the facades of the world Citra Terranova. You’d make a good scythe.” “Id never want to be one.” she
He was also human! Killing another human is never right. I do understand that george was trying to protect lennie but killing him is certainly not the right way to do it. Lennie may have problems with accidentally killing things but george didn't have to kill him for it. George promised to protect lennie and by killing him George broke that promise.”Him and me was both born in auburn.
Hale is worried that innocent people are being accused, but he also feels obligated to agree with the court. He then explains how “no crack in a fortress may be accounted small” (II.573-574.) after John could not remember his last commandment. Meaning that Puritans should be perfect, and any small crack in their faith makes them susceptible to going against their religion. Hale does not want to turn against his religion, so he continues to agree with the court, whereas more innocent people are being accused and hanged.
However, he would have to spend the rest of his life thinking that he has killed his best friend, and that he can never atone for it. George’s act of violence solved one problem but, it only caused another one. Gandhi explained this best when he said, “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is
George would protect Lennie at all costs even from himself. After Lennie kills a young woman, George decides it is better for Lennie to be dead rather than to be tortured and kept in a cell or a mental asylum. The decision of killing Lennie hit George like a train, but he knew it was something that was in Lennie’s own good. Knowing he could have an easier life without Lennie, George still kept him around because he needed George and George needed Lennie. George tells Slim “Course Lennie’s a God damn nuisance most of the time, but you get used to goin’ around with a guy an’ you can’t get rid of him.” (Steinbeck, 41) George explains how he feels about Lennie without getting too sweet so Slim does not think that George is weak.
Humans are a fragile species, and we are capable of dying at any moment regardless if we are ready or not. In Sherman Alexie’s “War Dances”, he illustrates the narrator’s coping with death and compares it to that of those around him. Upon figuring out that his death is no longer a looming threat, the narrator goes back to living life as if nothing happened cementing the idea that the threat of death is ever present but we choose to live as if it is not. Throughout the short story, Alexie utilizes the narrator’s experiences with the deaths of others and with the threat of his own to demonstrate the theme that death is always a possibility and there are many ways of coping with it. The narrator is hopeless about fighting his own death but utilizes humor to cope with the idea of dying.
In the eyes of Danforth people are not innocent until proven guilty; they are innocent until accused guilty. In the eyes of Danforth facts and details mean nothing to him. He comes to conclusions that any rational man cannot come to. He has doomed people to death who were innocent just because they did not want to confess to something that they did not do. This is because Danforth’s rule throughout these trials were that if someone was accused of witchcraft, even if they were innocent they had to confess or they were sentenced to death.