Louis Riel should not have been hung because he
represented those who couldn't represent themselves.
Louis Riel was disappointed with the way the Métis were,
so he took it upon himself to represent the Métis and their
rights. Even though the actions that followed, such as
keeping the new governor out the colony, was illegal and
very wrong. Riel risked it for the rights of the Métis. As for
Thomas Scott, Riel has absolutely no legal right to have
him shot, but Riel himself never touched a gun for that
purpose. He had a firing squad shoot Scott. Although, Riel
may have ordered the squad to shoot, but the men could
have backed down, no matter how powerful Riel seemed.
After the rebellion, he was elected by Manitoba to sit in
the House of Commons. Riel went to Ottawa but was not
allowed to sit as a member in the House, for he was
threatened by many to be shot if he appeared in the
House. This was the mistake of the government. They
should have sopped the nonsense and threats. For Riel
was a man of ideas. He was a man who was knowledged in
the government. It was obvious since he formed his own
government. Riel would have been an asset to the
Canadian government.
In 1884, Gabriel Dumont rode to Montana and asked
Riel to defend the Métis once again. Riel returned to help
the natives once more. Riel was risking capture when he
returned. This was a very noble act on his part. Instead of
staying nice and safe in Montana, Riel gave up his safety
for the Métis. Riel decided to try an unviolent approach
this time instead of starting an all out rebellion. Riel and
the Métis drew up a petition and presented it to the
government. The petition, which demanded more food
and money for the natives, was looked over but not acted
upon. The petition was fair in all parts but the government
turned it down. It only demanded that what belonged to
the natives be returned.
In early 1885, Riel formed another provisional
government, and started another rebellion. His followers
killed many army troops, but once again it was not the
hand of Riel that killed so many. It was of people who had
their own thoughts and intuitions. They could have easily
said no to Riel instead of shooting. In which case Riel was
Was Louis Riel a hero or a traitor? Well, some individuals say that he was a hero, and others say that he was a traitor. Individually I believe that Louis Riel was a hero because he was the forefather of Manitoba, which is a province of Canada. The fact that he was a persuasive politician and spiritual leader made him a hero as well. Lastly, he stood up for Native rights. Others like the British had thought of him mostly as a traitor, because they were not able to understand that Louis Riel had just needed the Canadian government to treat his people fairly, and that he was willing to do everything for his people. Instead the government had thought that he was violent and evil, so a threat to them. Most people who had seen him as a traitor had realized that he did everything for his people…after his hanging.
America is no stranger for juveniles being tried as adults. The first known case being in 1642; Thomas Granger, 16, who had sex with a mare, cow and some goats was hanged in Plymouth Colony, Massachusetts.1 He was America's first documented execution of a child offender and the debut of the juvenile death penalty.1 The youngest girl to be executed was 12-year-old Hannah Ocuish who was hanged for killing a 6-year-old white child in 1786.1 Finally, James Echols, was the last execution in 1964 who was executed for rape two years later at the age of 19.1
The trial of Louis Riel began on July 20 1885 and had much popularity throughout the world. But a question often presented is if the trial was a fair one. The argument being that Sir John A. Macdonald’s political interests set the trial to end with Riel’s conviction and execution. Others argue that Riel deserved his sentence as he instigated an armed rebellion against the Canadian government. Evidence presented seems to point to the fact that Riel was not innocent but undeserving of the death sentence that the court gave him.
According to KTLA, the boy ended up with a loaded gun in his hand, and then there was a bang.
The Anti-Noble Policy of Henry VII Henrys policy to the nobles during his reign could be considered as antagonistic. Henry had realised how easily the nobles could pose a threat to him, due to their power and responsibilities in his country, and so reduced this power thus reducing the possibilities of his downfall. This essays intention is to determine why Henry pursued such a dangerous policy, yet also reviewing the claims that his policies were anti-noble. This essay will also be interpreting the reasons for Henrys actions and the views of historians on the subject. Before the reign of Henry VII, the role of the nobles was highly significant in comparison to that during his reign due to the policies he introduced.
Louis Riel was one of the most controversial figures in Canadian history, and even to this day – more than a century after his execution – he continues to be remembered. Many believed him to be a villain; others saw him as a hero. So who was he really? Born in St. Boniface at the Red River Settlement of Canada (present-day Winnipeg, Manitoba) on October 22, 1844, Louis Riel hoped one day to follow his father’s footsteps and become a great Métis leader just like him. Eventually, Riel was seen as a hero to the French-speaking Métis. In the Canadian West, however, most people regarded him as a villain due to his execution in 1885. Nevertheless, Louis Riel was not really a villain by heart; only a flawed man who made many mistakes in his life. Today many more people are seeing him as a visionary, and recognizing the numerous contributions that he made to building Canada up as a nation. He was indubitably a Canadian hero, mainly due to his involvement with the Métis, confederating Manitoba with Canada, and approaching problems peacefully.
The author Alden noman uses several poetic elements in his poem “The Execution”. The execution is a free verse poem this makes it more story-like as the poem has no rhyme or rhythm to it and the type of poem is narrative. The poem has 6 stanzas and 118 lines. There is alliteration, such as “we went” and “thought they”. The story is mostly the type of stanzas that contain 3 lines called tercet. Alden also uses symbolism in this poem take the reverend for example, who is a symbol of the church and the holy spirit, there is then the sheriff who represents the order of society and then there is the press who is the symbol of free speech. There is also imagery, but it's minor and that is “the lights were so bright”. There is also spondee in the
The Great Pueblo revolt of 1680 all started with the droughts of 1660 when the Southwest had severe drought that brought famine and disease. During this, hungry Apaches who couldn’t find food on plains attacked the pueblos. This angered the people on the pueblos, but there new leader Pope’, a mysterious medicine doctor, tried to keep the Indian beliefs around and resisted the Christian religion. The Spaniards hated this, so they captured his older brother. This enraged Pope’ against the Spaniards so he held meetings to tell everybody that the Spaniards must leave. The Spaniards found out about this and arrested Pope, publicly flogged him and released him back to the pueblos. When he was captured, the pueblo people set fires in the Indian villages in New Mexico. To take care of the fires, the Spaniards sent troops to halt the ritual of setting the fires by pueblo people, and they arrested all of the medicine doctors, killing several of them. The people believed that the doctors protected them from evil, so all of the pueblo towns wanted to unite against the Spaniards. The group from the pueblos went to the governor of Santa Fe and told him that if the doctors that were imprisoned weren’t released by sundown, all of the Spaniards in New Mexico would be killed. They released the prisoners because the Indians outnumber the Spaniards by a huge amount.
To them, the excitement and the adventure of the buffalo hunt held more appeal than farming. Hundreds of Metis were content to earn a living by hunting buffalo, making pemmican or finding employment as freight drivers. After a while Canada bought Rupertsland from Hudson Bay Company. When the Metis heard this they were alarmed. They feared their religion,their language, their lands and their old, free way of* life.
The death penalty is a highly controversial issue, it is beyond doubt, because it related to live. Victims achieve ‘Retribution’ from death penalty, as a response to social injustice. There are many years of history used of death penalty, starting from the first death penalty law established in “Eighteenth Century B.C. in the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon” (Introduction), which people often say ‘an eye for an eye’. This means the punishment must match the crime, if you kill someone, then you should pay back with life. The death penalty in America was under the influence by Britain when “settlers came to the new world, they brought the practice of capital punishment” (Introduction). Since then, death penalty become a significant
Edward Earl Johnson was put in death row when he was eighteen. A documentary was made when he was twenty-six, called “fourteen days in May.” Edward claimed all along that he was innocent yet he was still executed. The documentary showed he had lived for eight years at the Parchment state penitentiary, Mississippi (death row.) Edward was put to death row for the attempted rape of an elderly white woman and the murder of a white Marshall. The documentary tried to show his innocence, the process of this is what this essay will be about.
Assaults, decapitations, persecutions and mutilations were all very predominant in Europe. Violent infractions, battles, insurrections and even riots had been a huge part of Europe’s early modern history. Even though society was oppressing each other, the ruler of the country often commanded very unacceptable punishments for criminals. When Louis XVI had absolute power over Europe, the punishments on merchants, criminals, peasants, and overall just the lower class would be mutilations, decapitations or public humiliations. What would induce a cropper to shovel or hoe and physically invade a French authority? What amusement did the French citizens had on witnessing lots of decapitations?
Living in a world where more than 10.1 million people are held in penal institutions, many countries have decided to go for a more cruel kind of retribution. Capital punishment, one of the many subjects in which several points of view have been expressed, has always been an issue concerning human rights. Whether a man should punish another by taking away his life or keeping him in jail is basically what most people are concerned about. Being entirely useless, cruel, and sometimes even unjust, Capital punishment should be abolished.
In The Count of Monte Cristo, Dantès goes from a happy, successful sailor to a dark vengeance seeking man. Though Dantès is advised many times not to seek out vengeance by his close friends like the Abbé, his emotions get the best of him and he attempts to carry out his wicked plan. Throughout the whole Bible, God instructs us to not repay evil with evil, and to leave revenge to him. Furthermore, in this story itself, Dumas drops hints about his perspective on the matter as well. Lastly, my view on vengeance is that it is for God to avenge and not man. However, in the end, everyone’s perspective on vengeance will become clear.
Murder! Rape! Terrorism! Most consider the people that commit these heinous crimes, but some say these people deserve a second chance. The Debate over the merits of capital punishment has endured for years, and continues to be an extremely complicated issue. Adversaries of capital punishment point to the Marshalls and the Millgards, while proponents point to the Dahmers and Gacys. Capital punishment is the legal infliction of the death penalty on persons convicted of a crime (Cox). It is not intended to inflict any physical pain or any torture; it is only another form of punishment. It is irrevocable because it removes those punished from society permanently, instead of temporarily imprisoning them. The usual alternative to the death penalty is life-long imprisonment.