The Chance or The Law
Nowadays, the issue of whether capital punishment should be abolished or not has been brought into a sharp flurry. A long time ago, there was a semi barbaric king who put people commit serious crimes into an arena. The author, Frank Stockton, was a famous American writer and novelist. He never tells stories by moralizing, instead, he uses a clever humor to poke at human foibles such as violence, greed and abuse of power. In his “, The Lady or The Tiger, ” the author uses two perspectives to show when a person gets punished is not the person who deserves it.
It is not fair for the innocent person to open the door with a tiger behind it while the person that should be punished to open the door that has the lady behind.
…show more content…
The crime could be pleased when opening one door. He could also be devoured in one second. This is all about chance and himself, nothing about mercy or ethic. If the persons open the door with the tiger behind, he will be torn into pieces in one second without hesitation. “The moment that the case of the criminal was thus decided, doleful iron bells were clanged, great wails went up from the hired mourners posted on the outer rim of arena, and the vast audience, with bowed heads and downcast hearts”(1). Even though no one wants, anything likes that happens. This is not their choice. The only thing they can do to be to show their sadness. These punishments are not decided by ethical or actual laws, like they should be instead they simply put the guilty person into the arena. Then it is all the person’s choice now and the chance of fate. No one cares about how not important the crime is or how bad it is. The only thing that judges the guilty person is the fate of which door to choose. This shows how Stockton wants the reader to see the negative of not having laws or a justice system.No one knows what is going to happen in one second. The person could be eaten or loved. “ the …show more content…
Sometimes the person that has done nothing wrong is the one that gets punished the most, instead of the person who is actually supposed to get punished. The man knew the only chance for him to survive the arena is to ask his lover which door he should open. The man was standing in the arena, “When her lover turned and looked at her, and his eye met hers as she sat there, paler and whiter than anyone in the vast ocean of anxious faces about her, he saw by that power of quick perception which is given to those whose souls are that she knew behind which door crouched the tiger, and behind which stood the lady”(3). The author makes one feel for the lady. This had to be a hard situation for her, because she knew she is the only one who can decide if the man will survive or not. She, herself wanted neither the door with the tiger or the lady. The man, on the other hand, needs to pick the door with the lady or else he will die. The man’s lover has been thinking for a long time about what she should tell him, because she knew she would be asked by the man. She thinks about it all the time, “How often, in her dreams, had she started in wild horror and covered her faces with her hands as she thought of her lover opening the door on the other side of which waited the cruel fangs of the tiger”(4). The scene of the man being eaten has gone through her mind many times. Those shrieks, that blood, the sound of screaming of the people
So what am I really trying to say here. Well, in the context of the society and the situation. I believe this punishment was fair. I believe such because the punishment was thoughtfully applied and was not biased or bought. It went according to the law and to social customs of the time and place and was, therefore, fair and proper. Being fair and proper automatically makes it
The princess’ motivation to direct her lover to the door with the tiger would be her inherent greed from her father, putting herself before others, and jealousy of what would happen if he got the lady. We can tell which door she chooses by looking at which door she fears the most. We can see which one does
In paragraph 3 and 4 the narrator explains, “ And every night, about midnight, I turned the latch of his door and opened it. . . I did this seven long night-every night just at midnight. ” This shows that he was a calculated killer because of the time he took to watch the man before killing him. It shows how the narrator thought it through. Also shows how he was going to have to study the old man's sleeping behaviors in order to have to kill him.
Randa, Laura E. “Society’s Final Solution: A History and Discussion of the Death Penalty.” (1997). Rpt.in History of the Death Penalty. Ed. Michael H. Reggio. University Press of America, Inc., 1997. 1-6 Print.
In “The Death Penalty” (1985), David Bruck argues that the death penalty is injustice and that it is fury rather than justice that compels others to “demand that murderers be punished” by death. Bruck relies on varies cases of death row inmates to persuade the readers against capital punishment. His purpose is to persuade readers against the death penalty in order for them to realize that it is inhuman, irrational, and that “neither justice nor self-preservation demands that we kill men whom we have already imprisoned.” Bruck does not employ an array of devices but he does employ some such as juxtaposition, rhetorical questions, and appeals to strengthen his argument. He establishes an informal relationship with his audience of supporters of capital punishment such as Mayor Koch.
A man is standing there with a noose around his neck. When there is a signal, the rope is cut, and the man’s body is dropped through the trap door. He is hanged like that in front of a crowd, which is even including old people and small kids. Is there anybody thinks about how would a child react if he had to witness such a horrible scene? An execution takes one’s life to warn the community with the hope that the crime rates would go down. But it is extremely cruel, and it makes people feel like they are living in the ancient world when there are no human rights. Now the world is evolving in the way of civilizing, so execution should be kicked out of this society because instead of bringing benefits to the community, the execution brings a lot of more destruction.
In order to defend my standing in this argument I will reason that the use of capital punishment has many benefits that trump any possible objections. Special attention will be given to the topics of deterrence, the families of the victims, and the increased population that has been occurring within our prisons. Any possible objections will also be assessed including criticism regarding the monetary value of the use of the death penalty and opposition to this practice due to its characteristics, which some identify as hypocritical and inhumane. My goal in arguing for the moral justifiability of capital punishment is not to use this practice extensively but rather to reduce the use to a minimum and use it only when necessary.
Throughout the ages, death penalty has always been a controversial topic and triggered numerous insightful discussion. In Kroll’s Unquiet Death of Robert Harris, the writer employs pathos as an appeal throughout the whole article in order to convince the audiences that death penalty is “something indescribably ugly” and “nakedly barbaric”. While Mencken makes use of ethos and logos and builds his arguments in a more constructive and effective way to prove that death penalty is necessary and should exist in the social system.
Andre, Claire, and Manuel Velasquez. “Capital Punishment.” Our Duty or Our Doom. 12 May 2010. 30 May 2010 .
In the story of “The Lady or the Tiger” there is a king that is semi-barbaric. The king has a daughter and she is a little barbaric herself and because they are a barbaric family they have a way of taking care of crime. They will have a lady and a tiger in two doors and if someone commits a crime or if the king doesn't like the person then the person will be put in the dome and will have to chose one of the doors. If they pick the door with the tiger in it that means that they are guilty of their crime and they will be eaten by the tiger and if they choose the door with the lady then it will mean that they get out scoot free. But there is a catch to it if they choose the lady then they will have to marry the lady even if they have a wife and family.
If he chose the door with the lady he would get married to the person she hates. Either way she loses the man she loves. The difference that they had was Captain Keller was loving while the princess was barbaric. Even though Captain Keller had hard times with Helen and his family he was still caring.
Capital punishment is a topic constantly debated because of moral principles and effects on society. Many would argue that the possibility of death prevents crime. Others would argue that execution is unjust. Flamehorse’s article, "5 Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty,” provides common reasons held by society with a short analysis. Other articles such as“4 Out Of 5 Texas Dentists Advocate The Death Penalty,” produced by TheOnion, promotes capital punishment through a satirical metaphor. The reasons may be factual or morally based because society operates on these principles. Once the reasons are evaluated, it may be possible to develop a stance throughout the paper. This will contribute to various hypothetical examples and the course of action to handle said example. However, individual interpretation is subjective meaning that everyone has a different idea in mind.
Eventually, the man lost everything, all his possession that he valued was given to the doorkeeper, including his life, in attempt to achieve
What Otsuka does cleverly is blur the distinction between the bystander and the Innocent Treat. Otsuka may go as far to say that the distinction made between the bystander and causal Innocent Threat may not be a morally relevant distinct. However, Helen Frowe would justify this distinction by highlighting that killing a Bystander is treating them “as a means” (Frowe,
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is how the saying goes. Coined by the infamous Hammurabi’s Code around 1700 BC, this ancient expression has become the basis of a great political debate over the past several decades – the death penalty. While the conflict can be whittled down to a matter of morals, a more pragmatic approach shows defendable points that are far more evidence backed. Supporters of the death penalty advocate that it deters crime, provides closure, and is a just punishment for those who choose to take a human life. Those against the death penalty argue that execution is a betrayal of basic human rights, an ineffective crime deterrent, an economically wasteful option, and an outdated method. The debate has experienced varying levels of attention over the years, but has always kept in the eye of the public. While many still advocate for the continued use of capital punishment, the process is not the most cost effective, efficient, consistent, or up-to-date means of punishment that America could be using today.