Hamlet as a Typical Revenge Tragedy
Shakespeare’s Hamlet very closely follows the dramatic conventions of revenge in Elizabethan theater. All revenge tragedies originally stemmed from the Greeks, who wrote and performed the first plays. After the Greeks came Seneca who was very influential to all Elizabethan tragedy writers. Seneca who was Roman, basically set all of the ideas and the norms for all revenge play writers in the Renaissance era including William Shakespeare. The two most famous English revenge tragedies written in the Elizabethan era were Hamlet, written by Shakespeare and The Spanish Tragedy, written by Thomas Kyd. These two plays used mostly all of the Elizabethan conventions for revenge tragedies in their plays. Hamlet especially incorporated all revenge conventions in one way or another, which truly made Hamlet a typical revenge play. "Shakespeare's Hamlet is one of many heroes of the Elizabethan and Jacobean stage who finds himself grievously wronged by a powerful figure, with no recourse to the law, and with a crime against his family to avenge."
Seneca was among the greatest authors of classical tragedies and there was not one educated Elizabethan who was unaware of him or his plays. There were certain stylistic and different strategically thought out devices that Elizabethan playwrights including Shakespeare learned and used from Seneca's great tragedies. The five act structure, the appearance of some kind of ghost, the one line exchanges known as stichomythia, and Seneca's use of long rhetorical speeches were all later used in tragedies by Elizabethan playwrights. Some of Seneca's ideas were originally taken from the Greeks when the Romans conquered Greece, and with it they took home many Greek theatrical ideas. Some of Seneca's stories that originated from the Greeks like Agamemnon and Thyestes which dealt with bloody family histories and revenge captivated the Elizabethans. Seneca's stories weren't really written for performance purposes, so if English playwrights liked his ideas, they had to figure out a way to make the story theatrically workable, relevant and exciting to the Elizabethan audience who were very demanding. Seneca's influence formed part of a developing tradition of tragedies whose plots hinge on political power, forbidden sexuality, family honor and private revenge. "There was no author who exercised a wider or deeper influence upon the Elizabethan mind or upon the Elizabethan form of tragedy than did Seneca." For the dramatists of Renaissance Italy, France and England, classical tragedy meant only the ten Latin plays of Seneca and not Euripides, Aeschylus and Sophocles.
... her rights given by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments before a trial. The Miranda Rights changed the way law enforcement conduct interrogations and gaining confessions. In taking the case, the Supreme Court had to determine the role police have in protecting the rights of the accused guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendment. The legal issue brought up was whether law enforcement officials must inform an accused of his constitutional rights as a responsibility.
The TearLAb device allows the practitioner to monitor and supervise the tear film’s osmolarity, which is an important factor correlated with dry eye. In normal patients tear osmolarity is low and very similar to blood osmolarity (290 milliosmoles per litter). This indicates that tears are in proper homeostasis. On the other hand, dry eye patients have elevated (> 316 mOsm/L) and unstable tear osmolarity which can vary both over time and between eyes.[4]. This test is simple and quick to perform which can be easily delegated to a consultant or a technician
Miranda Rights became a United States Supreme Court decision in 1966 (Miranda v. Arizona), in which the high court made a decision in favor of and upheld that the Fifth Amendment rights of Miranda were violated. The Miranda ruling gives suspects the right to remain silent and not speak to any law enforcement as a means to prevent self incrimination, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, if an attorney is requested and the defendant can’t afford one, there are provisions in Miranda for an attorney to be appointed to defend the individual.
Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law.” Everyone knows the Miranda Warnings from either television shows or even they have been recited while placed under arrest. Why do are police officers required to recite these rights to a suspect? Where did they come from? What happens if an officer or detective fails to advice a suspect of these rights?”
...fessions that were made were coerced or voluntary and to set a fair trial for that defendant. It is the right for arresting officers to read the accuser his or her rights because if the courts weren't fair was the purpose of having one. The Miranda Rights does serve a purpose and that's to inform the defendants of his rights before self incrimination therefore; it is up to the defendant to waive their rights. This wouldn't be America if people were guilty before they were proven innocent. . I agree with the courts if the defendant makes a statement before the officer has a chance to read him or her rights that the statement should be used in the court of law. The alternative for an unfair trial could separate Americans for years. We can have two different classes fighting one class to be equal and this could create great ciaos that can destroy our country for years.
As a result of the Miranda case, all persons detained by the police should be informed of four things before being questioned:
Without the person’s knowledge of their specific rights, law enforcement is going against the lawful procedures the court system has set out. While it is the job of the police to remind a person of their rights, there are times when this is not the case. As said by Alex McBride in his study of the Miranda v. Arizona case, "No statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice” (McBride 1). This statement demonstrates how important Miranda Rights are. McBride states that any statement a defendant says it is not the outcome of them choosing to speak, but rather the pressuring of a defendant to speak without the knowledge of their rights. If the defendant was familiar with their rights, then anything stated from them is the creation of unforced information that is lawful. While the Constitution is in place to protect the rights of Americans with its laws, over the years, new situations arise causing the need to put changes and amendments in place to solve these
In 1966, Ernesto Miranda was taken into custody for robbery, kidnapping, and rape. After two hours of questioning, Miranda confessed to his crimes. Being uneducated in the matter, Miranda did not know that the Fifth Amendment gives everyone the right to remain silent and not talk about anything that might convict him, or her. Miranda also didn't understand the Sixth Amendment, which provides everyone the right to have an attorney when the police are asking questions about a crime. The United States Supreme Court found that, in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), because the police had not told Miranda about these constitutional rights, the confession to the crimes could not be used as evidence against Miranda at trial. To avoid an unfortunate rerun of these events, police officers now tell the person in question their ‘Miranda Rights’ before he, or she, is taken into
In Miranda v. Arizona, the court ruled that any statements or confessions made from a police interrogation of a criminal suspect would be considered involuntary and inadmissible unless the police provided the suspect with four warnings: the right to remain silent; the intent to use the suspect’s statements against the suspect in court; the right to an attorney during questioning; and the...
The fifth amendment tells us “you have the right to remain silent” that basically came from the case of Miranda vs Arizona. In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with kidnapping, rape and armed robbery. This case was known to be the first tried to jury in Arizona. The main point of this case of Miranda vs Arizona is about neglecting the fifth amendment right to the convict, which gives the right to remain silent and acquire an attorney to protect his rights. It reflects the importance of civilian’s rights. Sometimes police and prosecutors intimidate and force the defendant to confess a guilty of crime to their convince and to increase their popularity of the efficiency of police department. But the law says no person is guilty of a crime until proven otherwise. This case gives us a clear picture of American judicial system. If the defendants are deprived of their rights they can fall to the conviction of a crime very easily the crime which they did not commit.
Many people have an understanding of the Miranda rights and they exercise them. It makes it harder for officers to get a confession by criminals. Many criminals will also exercise their right to counsel and the lawyer will advise them to remain silent. Also a criminal doesn’t have to be the only one to plea the fifth. A witness on the stand can exercise their rights. The way law enforcements get confessions have changed since 1966
Miranda v. Arizona is a case that revolutionized the rights of an accused while in custody and interrogation. The Supreme court leaders based the rights of Mr. Miranda by the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution. The fifth amendment has been interpreted though the decision of supreme court rulings into the right to remain silent in an interrogation in order to prevent the accused to testify against himself. This amendment also protects any person from double jeopardy from the same crime, gives him or her a grand jury, and it requires for due process of law to come in effect in case a citizen is denied him or her from their right of life, liberty, or property.
‘’The memory be green’’ (1.2.0-5). It has not been much time since Hamlet Sr. died, his memory stays fresh, but his brother, Claudius, has already married his wife and taken his kingdom. Claudius says he does it for the good of the Denmark, in The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark by William Shakespeare. In addition; Hamlet cannot stop his hatred and anger toward his mother and uncle. He gets devastated and goes in grief by the loss of his father. The appearance of ghost and the truth about his father’s death drags him to revenge. He moves from grief and depression to revenge and into insanity. The insanity that starts with as an act becomes real and destroys Hamlet and his loved ones.
This revolution brought an enormous wave of success in both economic and technical advancement. The first revolution largely focused on the production of new textiles machinery, improved methods of coal production, iron manufacturing and agricultural techniques. However, by the second industrial revolution, a clustering of industrial inventions centering on steel, railroad and agricultural machinery, thus, a big boom on the industry and economy. (Heilbroner and Milberg 2009,54)