As a result, the narrator is insane and should not be prosecuted. To start off , the eye drove the narrator to insanity, which led him to take the life of the old man, The narrator does not know right from wrong. In the story, the narrator said that “For it was not the old man who vexed me, but his evil eye”(Poe). This quote from the passage proves that he is insane because he is deciding to kill someone over his “vulture eye”. A sane person would realize that killing someone over a eye is a silly, wrong thing
Reverend Hale’s morals drive him seek him to seek and reveal the truth at first, but as he comes to new realizations he finds that it is better to lie and avoid the killing of innocent people. His morals are what led him to Salem, to help the town in their time of crisis. Since Reverend Hale is motivated by strong morals, his decision to challenge the legitimacy of the court results in him convincing the falsely accused to confess at the end of the play. Reverend Hale starts out seeking the truth. While investigating the trials he informs the citizens that he will not make assumptions based on religion and he will look to all causes to find the most accurate reason for the anomalies.
Argument writing In the case against Mr. Grey I will be prosecuting for his sanity. Frank Grey was aware of the crime he was committing. Many may try to defend him by saying he’s insane but, the Legal Definition of Insanity states “In a criminal trial, the word ‘insanity’ means something more specific than when we use it in everyday speech. You cannot say that someone on trial is ‘insane’ just because he did something that most of us would consider ‘crazy’”. That meaning,Mr.
Why isn’t the minister seen as a horrible person and Chillingworth is? In the Book The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, Dimmesdale, the Minister, has committed this terrible crime and some feel bad for him. This could be because Hester loves him; they are meant to be together. It’s interesting how Chillingworth can be seen as evil, but he is the one that was cheated on. He has mentally tortured Dimmesdale; obsessed with wanting him to suffer more that he has.
Danforth and the people of the court automatically point their fingers at Goody Proctor as being guilty, but they fail to recognize the Abigail’s underlying desire for vengeance. Because of their blindness, they don't question Abigail’s integrity. As the reader knows, Abigail is trying to kill Goody Proctor; therefore, Abigail’s knowing that a needle was in the voodoo doll could’ve been used to frame Goody Proctor of witchery. This would be a form of lying which defies one of the commandments, showing how a Puritan would overstep their superficial rules to satisfy their
1. The entire story is based on the fact that Fortunato has wronged Montresor many times, and Montresor dealt with them until Fortunato “ventured upon insult,” which caused Montresor to “vow revenge.” Though it seems the “insult” must be so terrible that Montresor is willing to murder him for it, the reader can not be entirely sure that the killing is justified since Montresor is not of sound mind. Because Montresor is the narrator, and unreliable at that, the reader is forced to learn about the events through a perspective tainted by emotions and bias. For example, the person telling the tale may embellish or downplay events in the story in order to look like the “good guy” without completely lying. Montresor could be making up the entire story, or he could be embellishing or downplaying the story so that he could defend his actions.
There are several ways the narrator himself is actually proving he is insane. The narrator is quite the character, being cold hearted and killing an innocent man. One reason that the narrator shows his insane side is the fact he is accusing the readers that they say he is “mad” for no apparent reason. The narrator begins the story with saying “but why will you say that I am mad?” (line 2). Throughout the text he continues to repeat his madness.
When Mersault’s lawyer is talking to him and it is said that, “The investigators had learned that I had “shown insensitivity” on the day of Maman’s funeral” (Camus 64). The court later uses this as a potential motive against Mersault because it shows his indifference to death and how he hadn’t shown remorse after either death. His indifference also earns him the title “Monsiuer Antichrist” because he seems wicked in the eyes of the magistrate for not feeling any remorse. Also, the lawyer mentions how his thoughts and persona are off putting and the legal dealings would be much harsher if he spoke what he thought to the magistrate. Mersault said, “He made me promise I wouldn’t say that at my hearing or in front of the examining magistrate” (Camus 65).
When the police arrived at the murderer’s house he proceeded to lie to them saying that the scream they received a complaint about was simply a bad dream he had, and that he was the one who screamed, rather than the victim, as he was being murdered. He then proceeded to invite them to have tea, as a way to distract them, and to also make them further believe he was innocent. Again, if the murderer were to be insane he would not have tried to hide the murder from the police as he did, if the murderer were to actually be insane he would have simply told the police what he had done, again, as in his mind the murder would not have been