However, he was guilty of murder. He killed his father, although he did not know it was his father, but he was still guilty. If he punched some one, and he did not want to kill him, and the person dies, he is still guilty of murder. He was materially guilty for killing his father. He killed his father, not knowing it was his father, but he still did it, so he was therefore guilty of murder, not patricide.
I present a case where Macbeth committed murder with his greed being his main motivator. This cold-blooded murder was not one done without a conscious. No, Macbeth was completely aware of what killing King Duncan could bring him: power. Although Macbeth’s actions were based off another’s plan, we will see that Macbeth killed with a conscious, making him solely guilty for the murder of King Duncan due to Macbeth’s prevalent characteristics of being power-hungry, deceitful, and greedy. As was said, Macbeth’s actions were not based off of his own plan.
Despite the fact that Tybalt initiated the fight, Romeo did kill Tybalt with no need for self-defense. Although killing Tybalt was Romeo's intentions at the moment, his actions were not premeditated. California’s penal code 192 states that voluntary manslaughter is an unlawful killing of a human being without malice, the offense is lessened from murder to manslaughter because of actions occurring in a heat of passion. He shall be sentenced to three, six, or eleven years in prison. I know
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
While awaiting trial Frank 's father Matt Fowler decides to give Mr.Strout a punishment he felt was necessary. Mr.Fowler went out and ended up murdering the man who murdered his son. While reading the story the audience dominantly takes Frank 's father 's side on the situation rather than feeling the same way about the two murders. People seem to sway towards Mr.Fowlers side of the story because they say it was out of love, Richard Strout deserved it, and Frank was innocent unlike Mr. Strout. Love is the key to all relationships throughout the world.
The N.C.F.CM.A.A.E.T.S. believes this to be true and that the serial killers have nothing to do with us, they are simply a product of their own misfortune. As a bold way to start their argument they state that “serial killers are only driven by instinct and a desire to kill.” (Serial Killers: Nature vs. Nurture, How Serial Killers are Born). From an outside perspective this is a logical conclusion. It’s easy to just look at a person that has committed a heinous act and label them an animal who only thinks about killing other people.
Then almost immediately after Alex contradicts himself by thinking “ In my book and the blind eyes of justice, the fact that a man had it coming doesn’t make killing him right “ (Patterson 194). This shows Alex’s true opinion in that he believes that killing a man who was clueless doesn’t make it right. It also shows he thinks everyone is innocent until proven guilty just like most cops are caught not and that he believes only courts can issue punishment not some group of vigilante
He conjures, “Could he be…the murderer of my brother? No sooner did that idea cross my imagination, than I became convinced of its truth” (Shelley 69). The creator does not analyze the facts or alternatives and instead assumes his own creation murdered his brother because it was the first thought that crossed his mind. As an extreme narcissist, Frankenstein believes he is always right and does not consider any alternatives. Although it may be argued that Frankenstein is correct because his creation did in fact kill William, his approach and thought process is still illogical and prolific of a narcissist.
This evidence shows that Curley was going to kill Lennie, and do it in a vengeful and unforgiving way. George only wanted Lennie not to suffer a painful death in which he didn’t deserve. To achieve a painless death, George shoots Lennie in the back of his head to make for a quick and painless death. This is a time when killing is justifiable. In the novella, the author states “But Curley’s gonna want to shoot’im.
He repeats “because” to make himself believe carrying out his duty of killing the enemy soldier was the right thing to do. He had to put aside his morals and kill the enemy before the enemy kills him.“Yes; quaint and curious war is! You shoot a fellow down you’d treat if met where any bar is or help to half-a-crown”(Hardy 20).The speaker is reflecting on his integrity and how in certain situations you would not kill someone who you could have been friends with. Even though he killed the man he feels guilty and questions his own
. He will suffer no unbearable punishment, nothing worse than exile" (171) At this time, Oedipus is trying to convince the killer to come forward and confess the murder. Ironically, by announcing this he has cursed himself because he is, in fact, the murderer of Laius. Near the end of the play, Oedipus asks a Shepard from whom did he retrieve the baby from. "No— / god 's sake, no more questions!
Murdering or sentencing one to death row is not just, even if the individual is guilty of treason. By saying the individual on trial shall not live because they murdered another, this reflects back on the decision makers. It deems those making the decisions hypocrites. The court members are choosing whether one lives or dies, and if they choose the death option they are performing the exact crime the individual could be on trial for. Murder.
Statements by Thomas conveyed that he knew that what he had done was wrong after he had after committing the crime. However, it is unclear that he knew this while committing the murder. This, along with self-injury that included the removal of both his eyeballs, built a case against sentencing Thomas to death on the basis that he was mentally incompetent. His attorneys argued that his execution would violate the clause of the eighth amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Prosecutors in this case would claim that his history with drugs and alcohol put him in this state, rather than a true mental illness (TX Tribune).