I believe that the execution and technically assassination of Marie Antoinette was unjustified. There are reasons and it will be presented today, because she didn’t commit theft, treason and she wasn’t properly tried. She may not have been the best queen at times but she still didn’t deserve to be executed by guillotine, because it wasn’t her fault she got made queen at such a young age. The first factoid that makes her execution unjust is that she was falsely accused of treason. This reason was also known as sexual abuse to her son Louis Charles. Now what many don’t know is that her son was actually forced to testify against her. A man that loved going to executions and testify against them so they would later get killed had gotten an …show more content…
On October 15th she was tried by a jury of all-males. Although this may have seemed fair back then, it isn't fair now because that jury was completely gender biased. They hardly took any time to conduct proper reasoning and almost immeadiately condemned her to death. It was astonishing how unanimously they chose on account that they must have all hated her for the previous innaccurate reasons given above. What they should have done when they tried her was get some different gender on the jury and the outcome may have been different than what they turned out. The counter claim won't afflict too much damage hopefully.Whenever Marie Antionette was queen of France she didn't pay much heed to the need of her subjects. It is said that whenever she was told that her French subjects did not have any bread to eat she simply said,"qu'ils mangent le gâteau," which later translated to let them eat cake. Many also hated for using tax dollars on clothing and rennovating her castle. Many hated the queen these reasons and is what perpetually lead to her death. So in conclusion you can see that in reality Queen Marie Antoinette, the last queen of France, was not guilty. Although she was falsely accused on many accounts, she should've paid more attention to her French subjects. This was why she apperantly the last queen of
My research question has to do with how puritan women are represented by the tried witches, and with background information on what Bishop was accused of as well as the fact the judge did not believe her, I am able to refute the logic of why she was executed. Bishop was not committing any actual crimes (by law) which means she was simply going against social norms. For example, Bishop was accused of murdering children, however there was not evidence found on where those bodies were, or exactly who she killed. There was no proof of any of her accusations being true, accept for the dolls she had in her house. In fact, once these “poppets” were found, “Bishop’s fate was sealed, and she was hanged in June 1692” (Associated Press A3). It seems as if the court wanted used the only source of proof they could find to hang her. The reputation Bishop gained throughout her court hearings scared the people of Salem because she never conformed to the female Puritan way of
In conclusion, the guillotine was a more enlightened way to execute someone than what people used to do. What they did to execute people before the guillotine was horrendous and inhumane. Hanging people and stoning people isn’t one of the kindest ways to execute a person. The guillotine went along with the enlightened way of thinking, and made executions less painful. The guillotine was one of the best execution devices ever created for its way of killing
The Guillotine brought equality in death to the French Revolution. Sometimes people of higher classes would receive quick deaths whereas people of the lower classes would receive slow, torturous deaths. People of many classes were being killed and the Guillotine allowed everyone to receive equal punishments rather than being tortured. The tribunals were self-selected revolutionaries that dictated who was guilty and who needed to be executed. There were 44,000 of these councils. During the tribunals, most people were prosecuted bases on suspicions and no hard evidence. The Guillotine was also depicted on pins which were worn by supporters of the French Revolution. The Guillotine was a very significant tool and a minimum of 440,000 were executed via the Guillotine. In my analysis, the Guillotine added to the motto of the French Revolution “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or Death.” The Guillotine made death equal and assured liberty and
Rebecca Nurse was known to all as a saintly woman. She followed God with all her heart, soul, mind, and strength. The Lord was her savior and protector. But because of mass hysteria, Mrs. Nurse was incriminated of exploiting witchcraft. This aghast most people because the most religious person they knew had been a witch. This was false. Rebecca Nurse was not a witch and had not demonstrated witchcraft by any means. She was innocent. She, like John Proctor, was solicited by Reverend Hale to confess but to no avail. Rebecca Nurse had held an immaculate reputation, and she was not about to let it get defamed by some false accusation. Rebecca Nurse, again like John Proctor, was hung for her falsely accused treacherous actions. This again is a prime example of what people will go through in order to keep a reputation that is accepted by
... truth, denying her involvement as a witch, but be hung anyway for "lying" under oath. On the other hand, an innocent victim could lie and confess her involvement as a witch, accuse another witch instead and be let "off the hook". However, if the innocent victim lied and confess, but wasn't willing to turn in another witch, she would be hung anyway. (Starkey, 17) This created quite an ironic situation coming from a Christian based community of purity and holiness.
King Louis attempted to escape, but was quickly captured, taken back to paris, and was tried and executed for crimes against the people. Louis XIV, executed in 1793, was the last Bourbon king of france. Nine months later, his wife was executed. His wife was Marie Antoinette, an Austrian. She married king louis XIV when she was only fifteen years old and had a tough time being queen ever since she got married. She Was blamed for the country going downhill, and she had to live under the supervision of the revolutionary once they took over. In 1793 her husband was executed, and nine month later, so was
... differently depending on what their personal biases and prejudices are. This shows that just because the jury could not successfully sentence her to the death penalty, it does not mean that she in undeserving.
I overheard from the guards saying how she incriminated herself during the trial when she answered every question honestly. She admitted to not releasing the prisoners, and allowing the flames to devour the church and the innocent people in it. She also admitted to writing a report that proved that she and her fellow guards didn’t release the prisoners. I couldn’t have imagined that such diligent woman was a cruel Schutzstaffel guard, and yet, I see these books on her shelf like nails condemning her to death. Through these books, I saw that she was trying to atone for crimes. But for someone who is already in prison, to read and acknowledge such horrific accounts of her own doings is just
“After she was dead one of the assassins ripped out her heart and ate it while another stuck her head on a pike and paraded it beneath the Queens window” (Gautreu). The queen there talking about is Marie Antoinette. She was the archduchess of Austria and when she married Louis the king tension started to grow between Austria and France . This eventually lead up to the September massaacre. In this the author is speaking of Princess de Lambelle. She accompanied the royal family to the Tuileries; she was the daughter of King at the time, Louis the 16th. This is a description of what happened to the princess during those awful days in September. This is some of the ways people were murdered during the year 1792. Therefore The September Massacre was the most important part of the French Revolution because it had many events leading up to it, the largest number of fatalities during, and had many consequences afterwards.
Outside threats from foreign countries did in no way justify the acts of the Reign of Terror. Foreign countries such as Austria and Prussia had reason to act. If they didn’t access the situation quickly, the revolution would spread to their countries and their people would also rebel. Austria itself was worried about the safety of Louis XVI’s wife, Queen Marie Antoinette, who was a daughter in the Austrian royal family (Doc. B). They had reason to
task of speaking to secure her own freedom when she was placed on trial for obstructing the draft in 1917. The country was awash in patriotism, and she was prosecuted as an enemy of the state. When preparing her speech, she realized that a seated jury would be a microcosm of the country's national spirit. Jurors may have had children or loved ones committed or lost to the Great War. Her position, though heartfelt and eloquently expressed, with an attempt to express her own patriotism, was subversive and threatening to the population.
...cause she was in custody and had not been informed of her right to remain silent or her right to an attorney. The panel of judges also decided to not allow damaging testimony from local Pharmacist Eli Bence who claimed Lizzie attempted to purchase prussic acid the day before the murders. One final blow to the States case came at the conclusion of the trial when Justice Dewey charged the jury, he told the jury to take into consideration Lizzie’s exceptional Christian character, which entitled her to every inference in her favor. Newspaper headlines identified Justice Dewey as lead council for the defense and perhaps rightfully so, today the actions of the judge would not be tolerated. Ultimately the lack of physical evidence tying Lizzie to the crime coupled with the high powered defense was enough to cast doubt in the juror’s minds, securing an acquittal for Lizzie.
...o avoid disbelief from her audience. She was the first woman who dared to tell her experience of enslavement and how she was sexuallyabused.
...wn the monarchy because “World History,” states that, “Louis was well-intentioned and sincerely wanted to improve the lives of the common people.” (Beck Roger, Black Linda, Krieger, Larry, Naylor Phillip, Shabaka Dahia, 653) However, King Louis XVI lacked the conviction and initiative to carry out any of his plans to truly improve the lives of the French citizens. Proof of this was that the French citizens were desperate enough to riot the streets of France and storm the prison of Bastille. After all that has been said, it is clear that the citizens were indeed justified to overthrow the monarch.