Shackled up from head to toe, I am thrown from my horse on the ground. I immediately attempt to return to my feet as they bellow at me. I’m nauseous, I struggle to see landmarks, I look up only to see a raven. I’m surrounded by so many angered people, I don't know where we are. I am pulled like a stubborn horse through the mob of furious people as they cry out unkind words, point at me spit at me and yell out Devil. I think to myself, how did it ever turn to this? Why was I there at Illugastadir that night? Why did I follow Fredrik to see what he had executed? Reality quickly snaps back to me, I look ahead to see a small wooden building. I look closer to see Blondal and a man standing beside him. Is this my trial? Will people listen to what …show more content…
I never intended….’ The judge thumped his gravel. ‘Enough said!’ “Everything I said was taken from me and altered until the story wasn't my own.” They make it seem as if I intentionally seemed Fredrick at Katadalur to plan Natan’s death. I only went to Katadalur for survival, I would have died sleeping with the cow or from one of Natan’s tempers. Again I hear the judge, ‘Agnes Magnusdottir, do you recall the events that took place at Illugastadir on the night of Petur Jonsson and Natan Ketilsson’s death?’ Panic rushed through my body, with a shiver down my spine I answer ‘Yes I’…. I was cut off. The judge exclaimed ‘Agnes Magnusdottir, did you carry out the murder Petur Jonsson and Natan …show more content…
You Agnes Magnusdottir are guilty of conspiring to murder. You Agnes Magnusdottir, have been sentenced to death. Eventually all I hear is ‘Agnes’… ‘Agnes’.., “They don’t know me”. I no longer feel human, bound up in all of these chains, “Like a lamb ripe for slaughter”. I have noting left, I am striped of everything with the exemption of what is on my back. No family, no possessions, no rights, I do not even own my own words anymore. And above all of this, Natan is gone. A surge of pain flickers through my body, or what remains of it. “I was two dead men. I was a burning farm. Was a knife. I was blood”. Again the judge pounds the gavel. I over hear the judge and Blondal discuss my fate. I feel a hot stream of urine trickle down my soiled stockings and pool by my feet. I look up, towards the front of the court. I make direct eye contact with the judge, then Blondal as they proclaim ‘Agnes Magnusdottir, you are sentenced to death, with no christian rights. Your body that remains behind after the execution will be buried on the spot without ceremony or a priest.
This examination will look at the short story “Killings” by Andre Dubus and the main characters in the story. The story begins on a warm August day with the burial of Matt and Ruth Fowler’s youngest son Frank. Frank’s age: “twenty-one years, eight months, and four days” (Dubus 107). Attending the funeral were Matt, his wife Ruth, their adult children and spouses. Matt’s family is extremely distraught over the murder of their youngest son/brother, in their own way. There are implications of wanting to kill Richard Strout, the guy accused of being the murderer: “I should kill him” (107), as stated after the service. This comment is considered a fore-shadowing of what is to come in the thought progression of Matt and Ruth.
In George Orwell’s essay, “A Hanging,” and Michael Lake’s article, “Michael Lake Describes What The Executioner Actually Faces,” a hardened truth about capital punishment is exposed through influence drawn from both authors’ firsthand encounters with government- supported execution. After witnessing the execution of Walter James Bolton, Lake describes leaving with a lingering, “sense of loss and corruption that [he has] never quite shed” (Lake. Paragraph 16). Lake’s use of this line as a conclusion to his article solidifies the article’s tone regarding the mental turmoil that capital execution can have on those involved. Likewise, Orwell describes a disturbed state of mind present even in the moments leading up to the execution, where the thought, “oh, kill him quickly, get it over, stop that abominable noise!” crossed his mind (Orwell.
Sister Helen Prejean purposes of writing this text is to create awareness about the cruel and moral of death penalty and the reality of the humanness of executing a human being in the form of Capital Punishment. The audiences of this text are from college students to older age group. Because of the text used mature language and requires a deep understanding of human rights and death penalty in order to view her point of views. She wants to expresses her thought about the morality of killing a human that were allowed by our society and government. She makes the audience think about death row inmate as a person and give you the truth about what is actually taking place within our society today. She allows us go deeper into her thought to see why and how she views the death penalty as immoral and she tries to helping the poor that struggle in the justice in our
“No,” I answered hollowly. “I can’t say you did.” Her eyes looked down to the floor until she built enough courage to continue her story that I knew I couldn’t avoid.
Greetings, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. We present to you today Grendel, a creature accused of crimes of monstrosity. We stand before you today to prove to you that the accused is indeed guilty of such crime for which the penalty should be death at the hands of a suitable hero. Through the display of evidence and facts, we will validate our allegation and prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Grendel is absolutely who he is accused to be. For the past twelve years, Grendel has tormented the Danes with terror as he demolished their mead hall and cruelly killed their men. He killed without regret or remorse, and even took pleasure in terrorizing, killing, and eating them. A cease to this abomination’s terror came to be when a great hero
As the defense has so diligently pointed out, it is indeed a sad day in the history of our judicial system when an innocent woman is sent to her death for a crime that she did not commit. I, for one, am not planning on having that momentous occasion take place today, and this is for one simple reason: Justine is guilty. While the defense has done nothing but parade Justine’s friends in front of you saying how much of a “nice person” she is, I, the prosecution, have presented you with cold, hard facts, all of which point to the guilt of the defendant.
The promise of closure seems like an illusion more than a reality; the idea of it suffers from the assumption that the murder victims’ families’ desire that the offender be executed in order to feel liberated from grief and all the pain that the criminal has caused. According to Berns, closure is something many families of victims’ pursue, but do not often achieve and it has become a protruding cultural narrative for defining the needs of the victims’ and also the broader concept of justice. Those that are for capital punishment and those who are oppose it don’t really have a true definition for the word and argue whether it exists or not. There are many arguments on how to achieve c...
Throughout America’s history, capital punishment, or the death penalty, has been used to punish criminals for murder and other capital crimes. In the early 20th century, numerous people would gather for public executions. The media described these events gruesome and barbaric (“Infobase Learning”). People began to wonder if the capital punishment was really constitutional.
throughout the whole world--the last murderer lying in prison ought to be executed before the resolution was carried out. This ought to be done in order that every one may realize the desert of his deeds, and that blood-guiltiness may not remain on the people; for otherwise they will all be regarded as participants in the murder as a public violation of justice.” (Rachels, 2010)
Andre, Claire, and Manuel Velasquez. “Capital Punishment.” Our Duty or Our Doom. 12 May 2010. 30 May 2010 .
Ethics and morality are the founding reasons for both supporting and opposing the death penalty, leading to the highly contentious nature of the debate. When heinous crimes are com...
ABSTRACT: In this paper I present a moral argument against capital punishment that does not depend upon the claim that all killing is immoral. The argument is directed primarily against non-philosophers in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Oddly, the moral argument against capital punishment has not been effective in the United States despite the biblical injunction against killing. Religious supporters of the death penalty often invoke a presumed distinction between ‘killing’ and ‘murdering’ and avow that God forbade the latter but not the former. Self-defense and just wars are cited as cases of morally justified killing. Accepting these premises, I point out that when cases of justified killing in self-defense are altered to include an element of delay, disarming and premeditation, they too become murder. Since the death penalty clearly involves the elements of delay, disarming and premeditation, I conclude that the death penalty is murder in the biblical sense and ought to be abolished in any God-fearing (or otherwise moral) society.
To begin this discussion on mortality, it is necessary to define the moral context. Therefore, for the purposes of this essay, I define the act of regularly torturing people to death without due judicial process as an affront on general morality. Discussions of Kant's views on free will would suggest that this is because taking a person's life deprives them of their free will (Newton). The act of torture, which, by definition, is an activity which the participant does not wish to engage in, also deprives a person of free will. The act of ending a person's life also deprives society of further contributions from that person which is a key element of greater enlightenment. The lack of due judicial process is more ambiguous and is not the major subject of this essay.
Bedau, H. A. (2004). Killing as Punishment:Reflections on the Death Penalty in America. York, Pennsylvania. Maple Press. Northeastern University Press. Print
In the early modern era in Europe, public executions were the primary punishment given to members of society who were involved in criminal behavior. This form of punishment served to showcase the absolute power of the state, King and church to take away the life of any citizen who disrupts peace. It was a way to make the criminal justice system visible and effective in an era when the criminal justice system was in its beginning stages of demonstrating orderliness (Spierenburg). More specifically, it was a relatively straightforward and psychological way to evoke deterrence. The potential of gruesome violence, public persecution and religious betrayal were tools thought to be strong enough to make public executions a successful form of deterrence because within the community, social bonds and religion were the foundation of everyday life.... ...