Rainsford is a competitive hunter just like Zaroff so there is a possibility he killed Zaroff because he is stubborn and wanted to win, which would lead him to be guilty and have a more intense punishment. In the end I think even if it was for survival rainsford will have to serve some jail time for his actions. I believe Rainsford should serve some jail time because he did push Zaroff’s body off the window and let the dogs eat his flesh, pushing Zaroff’s body off was unnecessary but the actually murder has its own punishments. Do you think he should be in jail for murdering Zaroff even if it was for his own protection?, keep in mind that Rainsford would be guilty for many things he has done as
Both of the short stories are about revenge, murder and madness. The narrators of both the Tell-Tale Heart and the Cask of Amontillado have very different motives for committing the murder each of them commits. In The Tell-Tale Heart, the narrator is insane and his motive behind killing the old man is that he cannot stand the sight of the old man’s “vulture eye”. He is tempted to close the eye forever, and so he does this by murdering him. Whereas, in The Cask of Amontillado, the reason behind the murder is revenge, “The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as best I could; but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge.” Additionally, Montressor’s jealousy is another reason because of which he murders Fortunato.
In the book Golding argues that human violence is inherent and when there are no rules the violence within one is brought out. Violence corrupts society because irrational decisions are being made out of anger and fear. At first, in the novel, rules are put in place and there is some order to the way the boys do things, they have a leader. Eventually the fear in everyone comes out and creates a culture of violence. An specific example of violence corrupting society is when the boys become hunters end up killing Simon because they want to think he is the beast.
When Jack wanted hunt, he was worried that no one thought he could, that people thought that he was weak. He pushed himself to kill the pig and became obsessed. Jack was obsessed with the power it made him feel and the power that he thought he inherited with the group. When Jack pauses the first time they went hunting, it's proof that he couldn’t kill at first, he had to become “zoned” in and disassociate himself with the actual hunting before he could make his first kill. Once he overcame his fear of killing his humanity, he was able to not only kill pigs, but also kill people, and be okay with it.
One of them is Brutus could be tracked down and executed for killing Caesar. Though it would help the people of Rome Brutus doesn't want to die because of his actions. All of Caesar's guards would hunt down Brutus and assassinate him for killing who they thought was a great
This shows how Columbus's crew, as well as him killed for amusement. Not only that he liked to kill in brutal ways like mutilation or being ripped apart by dogs. My second reason why Christopher Columbus was a villain was because was because of his involvement in the keeping thousands of
In this society, they kill people because the goverment promotes people to kill one another. One of the characters, Clarisse, describes violence and how it is normal in her society. ¨But every one I know is either shouting or dancing around like wild or beating up one another. Do you notice how people hurt eachother nowadays?¨(Bradbury,27) In the book Fahrenheit 451 when people get bored or sad, they kill people for fun. Violence is an acceptable part of their society that is almost expected.
With all their similarties, Lord of the Flies and The Most Dangerous Game prove that people can behave like animals and savages when it comes to survival.The human nature example in the Lord of the Flies would be the boys killing Simon, the boys behaved pretty savage because they thought Simon was the beast. On the other hand, Rainsford had to kill General Zaroff to save himself from being killed by the General. The theory being made is that individuals do whatever is necessary to survive, because in Lord of the Flies Jack had to do what he felt was right in a savage way to survive. In The Most Dangerous Game character Rainsford also had to kill the General in order to survive. In the end, these stories prove that human beings need to do whatever is necessary to keep their lives from being in
These characteristics are commonly used by sadistic serial killers. In the movie, he tells Blomkvist (the journalist) that he is “more of a serial rapist than a serial murderer and most of all a serial kidnapper.” He is a rich and smart man who lives in an isolated area and once he has killed the women he dumps them at sea in order to hide his crime. I describe Martin as a serial murderer because he has a list of women who he has killed by strangling them. He enjoys torturing these women. Meloy et al, (2004) suggest that the word serial is applicable for those who kill three or more victims using some form of
Being that he was never identified, the only possible motive for the killings came from the message in his letters that were decoded. It read, “I LIKE KILLING PEOPLE BECAUSE IT IS SO MUCH FUN. IT IS MORE FUN THAN KILLING WILD GAME IN THE FOREST BECAUSE MAN IS THE MOST DANGEROUS ANIMAL OF ALL. TO KILL SOMETHING GIVES ME THE MOST THRILLING EXPERIENCE. IT IS EVEN BETTER THAN GETTING YOUR ROCKS OFF WITH A GIRL.
He hunts humans because he wants to be challenged. The other character, Montresor, so looking for revenge. He tries to lure a man named Fortunato into a trap. He tries to trap Fortunato because he insulted him and Montresor wants to get his revenge. General Zaroff 's motive for killing is more evil than Montresor 's.
The killing brings joy to him. " a lurking humor ran through his deeds" Killing things just to do it for fun is not good it is pure evil. Like when buck kills Spitz. He kills him to show dominance not for food. If you kill animals for food that is different, that is how you survive in the wild.
If terrorism is wrong, why is big game trophy hunting right? Big game trophy hunting is the killing of animals for the fun of it and displaying it for others or themselves to see. Large animals are killed in the process of ‘show and tell’ and not given a second thought, after doing so. Big game hunting is unethical because it depletes animal populations and results in unnecessary death. Trophy hunting has many proponents within.
Which was different than Romeo and Tybalt who would fight in the streets for fun whenever they felt the need to pick on each other. As soon as Tybalt executed Mercutio, Romeo’s friend, in the streets was when things worsened for the family. Romeo decided to go after Tybalt and ended up killing him. Later on in the story when Paris came to visit the “dead” Juliet at her grave, Romeo killed Paris. In both of these situations one had to be smart about who they were going to go and kill, because it would change everything for them.