“Thou shalt not kill,” this is one of the cardinal rules for almost all society, yet people kill everyday. There is no fine line between what justifies killing someone, people will kill to protect their families or their country, but is killing for self comfort justified? In the story “The Daughter” a man is put into a hard situation, he has no food and his daughter is always hungry. The man kills his daughter to stop the constant complaining from hunger. The people of the town set him free for this but he should not have been set free. The act of killing is justified in some occasions, one of those occasions is killing to take something out of an unbearable pain that will lead to death. Charles kills his daughter Clara because she is complaining about being hungry all the time.Hunger is one of the worst forms of torture, especially when it's to the point of death. The crowd seemed to believe that killing Clara was not Charles’ fault saying “It must have been an accident.” Some of the people even brought food to the man. The crowd justified Clara’s murder by blaming a man who took food from the Carlisle family. “Henry Maxwell didn't have no business coming and taking all the shares” said one …show more content…
Even the people outside the jail tell Charles things he could have or should have done. They hear the reason Charles killed his daughter. They all offer help now, after it is too late. “You could have come and asked me for something for her to eat, you know I’d have given you all I got in the world” says one of the people in the crowd. Not only do the people offer help, they seem to offer their whole lives “I’d have given you all I got in the world.” This shows that the man Jim must mean something more to the civilians, there is something the readers don’t know about him. One other person offers help saying “You ought to have sent her over to my house.” All of the people offer help and give excuses for
First moment when the readers see his change of view is when he says, “I wanna do what’s bes’ for you folks…you took me in, carried me along. I’ll do whatever.”(168) Clearly, the Joads was the driving force of the change in his view. Jim Casy realized that the sense of connection and bond between the family members and people in a group make the group stronger and tougher. Before he realized this, Jim Casy often took the problem himself and tried to figure out the answers by himself because he believed in individuality and independence. Although, at this point of the novel, he only experienced a short span of tragedy and hardship, he realized the importance of his sacrifice and willingness to get involved in the group. Many readers cannot help to recognize this rapid and gradual change of Jim Casy’s view towards organized groups.
He didn’t deserve to die, nor did he deserve any of the persecution or ill treatment that he ended up getting. He deserved a chance to say to the world that he was not an immoral man and to prove his explanations behind his movements. Ned was in fact a victim- and if only he had additional time to evidence that, perhaps the world would open up their eyes to the fact and possibly- just maybe they would be able to see what those 32,000 people saw in him. Sure, Ned Kelly’s surprises died with him but his story? It is clear to the world that Ned’s story will live on for forever. Ned Kelly`s had only wanted the good out of people and never even dreamed to have a career as theft. No child these days gives enough respect to their hard working parents who brought them up. This respect for elders only lasted for the 1990s and since then every child has no respect or discipline for their loving parents. Ned was only trying to help his parents out. The community only looks at the police`s perspective not
The love that a parent feels for a child is the most indescribable feeling in the world. Most parents would do anything and everything to protect their children, but not all parents are aware of the danger their child faces. In the short story "Killings," by Andre Dubus, a mother and father are faced with the tragic death of their son. Both parents, although both may not admit to it, believe that the murderer deserves the same consequences their son suffered. Matthew Fowler takes matters into his own hands, and along with his friend, Willis Trottier, kills Richard Strout. The death of Richard Strout should not be tried as a murder, but as a justifiable homicide. Matthew Fowler, the father of Frank Fowler, had every reason to reciprocate Strout's actions. A child should not be taken from a parent in the way that Frank was taken from his.
For this paper I read the novel The Memory Keeper’s Daughter by Kim Edwards, this novel is told in the span of 25 years, it is told by two characters David and Caroline, who have different lives but are connect through one past decision. The story starts in 1964, when a blizzard happens causing the main character, Dr. David Henry to deliver his own twins. During the delivery the son named Paul is fine but the daughter named Phoebe has something wrong with her. The doctor realizes that the daughter has Down syndrome, he is shocked and age remembers his own childhood when his sister was always sick, her dyeing at an early and how that effected his mother. He didn’t want that to happen to his wife, so David told the nurse to bring Phoebe to an institution, so that his wife wouldn’t suffer. The nurse, Caroline didn’t think this was right, but brings Phoebe to the institution anyways. Once Caroline sees the institution in an awful state she leaves with the baby and
In the movie Dead Man Walking, Earl Delacroix, the father of a murder victim, is seen at the funeral of the murderer, Matthew Poncelet, after his execution. While there, he says that he hasn’t found the peace he thought he would have after Matthew was executed and that his heart was still filled with hatred (Dead Man Walking.) This is the case for many families, capital punishment may give the impression that the murder victim’s family gains closure from the execution of the murderer, but that is rarely the case; even years after the execution has taken place, some family members of the victim suffer from unresolved grief and the murderer’s family is also affected in a negative manner. Capital Punishment is often viewed as the “right” option to put the families out of their pain and suffering, but in many cases, it’s just not effective in providing closure for the families and might make things worse; therefore, it should not be a valid reason for execution.
The death penalty provides the victim’s families closure.[5] While the victim themselves are not alive to gain any closure from the situation, the execution of the perpetrator does bring a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal.
Proponents of capital punishment believe that killing criminals is a moral and ethical way of punishing them. They feel there is justification in taking the life of a certain criminal, when in fact that justification is nothing more than revenge. They also feel that the death penalty deters crime, although there have been no conclusive studies confirming that viewpoint (Bedau).
Main Point 1: Imagine someone that has been accused of murder and sentenced to death row has to spend almost 17-20 years in jail and then one day get kill. Then later on the person that they killed was not the right person.
Would you say that it’s ever moral to kill an innocent person? What do you consider a living person? When their heart has a beat, when they’re breathing? After a lady is pregnant for five weeks their baby 's heart has started to tick, though you can’t
Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is defined as the pre-meditated or planned taking of a human life by a government in response to a crime committed by that legally convicted person. It has been discussed extensively over the years by many people. There are many reasons to agree or disagree with capital punishment, but the reasons against it completely outweigh the ones that support it. Many of the justifications for affirming the death penalty either do not apply wholly to our justice system, are misunderstood, or just do not make sense. There is no justification for killing other human beings and all of the arguments cannot change this. Since 1976, over one thousand people have been executed by the government.
It is morally justified to kill criminals who have lost their right to life and whom we have a right to kill.
This is because if you are doing it after contemplating it and for protection and others, it should be deemed as correct. That is why a charge in court can be taken away if the jury finds it self-defense. It is not morally correct but, it is not something you should be sentenced to jail for committing. Although it is unfortunate that people die, it is an everyday life occurrence. It just depends on the way they die that makes it stand out. Murder is never permitted and punishable. Killing out of hate, anger, and being mentally unstable is not allowed, therefore is considered murder. Both protagonists did what they ordered to do to stay alive and protect other people from getting hurt. They did not want to kill, but it had come to be their last
First, Murder goes against religion. The Bible states in Matthew 5:21 that “You shall not murder”, it also says in 1 John 3:15 that “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer”.
Firstly, the proponents for this argument associate the death penalty as morally right saying, when one life is taken; one life is paid in return. This is morally wrong as any form of killing is wrong and it makes us immoral by killing a killer. Former Us President Jimmy Carter stated that the process of death as
The death penalty is inhumane. One could say that the death penalty is inhumane because it takes a person’s life away in the form of revenge. For example, families of victims tend to be upset toward the suspect and want the ultimate revenge which is the death penalty. People have no right to want a murderer to be put to death because it is inhumane to decide another person’s fate and it lowers us to the suspect’s level. One could say that it is understandable where the families of victims are coming form on this issue and others should not judge them for that because the families are acting out of anger, but people have no right to decide if another person lives or dies. For example, no one has the right to judge another person but God. An average person should not put themselves at a higher power. In the World Medical Jour...