Count Of Monte Cristo Revenge Analysis

In Ian McEwan’s Atonement, Michael Chabon’s Wonder Boys and Louise Erdrich’s The Round House the legal system fails to produce just outcomes. In Atonement one of the main characters, Robbie is convicted of raping a young girl, when in fact he is innocent. Despite only unsubstantiated evidence from a 13-year-old girl, he is convicted. Only after the judicial system had failed did the girl wish to recant her former account, but by then it was too late. “ If you were lying then, why should a court believe you now? There are no new facts, and you’re an unreliable witness” (McEwan 82). In this unjust sentencing of an innocent man, Atonement shows that not only does the legal system sometimes err, but that these errors are often particularly difficult to ameliorate. Unfortunately this is not an anomaly. One in nine people sentenced to death row were later exonerated showing that sometimes instead of being the solvency for wrongdoings, the legal system can be the source (Stevenson).

Edmond Dantès, the main character of The Count of Monte Cristo, is an innocent and unsuspecting young man who is thrown in jail by those who were jealous of him. Once Edmond escaped, he changed his identity to the Count of Monte Cristo, and plotted a harsh revenge against his enemies. At the beginning, he said “Happiness is like one of those palaces in fairy tales whose gates guarded by dragons: we must fight in order to conquer it.” (Dantes 18) He thinks that his marriage with Mercédès is too good to be true, according to his statement. As it turned out, it was, and he was put in prison for fourteen years, and it was fifteen years before he saw her again. The only thing Edmond sought after he escaped from jail was revenge. So he took

Throughout the history of man there has always existed a sort of rule pertaining to retribution for just and unjust acts. For the just came rewards, and for the unjust came punishments. This has been a law as old as time. One philosophy about the treatment of the unjust is most controversial in modern time and throughout our history; which is is the ethical decision of a death penalty. This controversial issue of punishment by death has been going on for centuries. It dates back to as early as 399 B.C.E., to when Socrates was forced to drink hemlock for his “corruption of the youth” and “impiety”.

A cross-cultural examination of certain deviant acts surface interesting observations of both the root of function of deviance in that given society. This observation will illustrate how the ways in which deviance is viewed in a specific culture is not universal. The author also touches upon how the “concept of normal” is equated with the “concept of good”; therefore, by consequence, anything remotely outside this pre-established box is viewed in a negative manner (Benedict 1934:4). The category of deviance is employed by society as a strategic means of reducing diversity, maintaining order and above else, upholding the social norm. Individuals who threaten this system are immediately labeled as evil wrongdoers who are then treated differently on every level. A further scholar, Erikson, compares the social system to a “nucleus, “which” draws the behavior of actors toward [itself] within range of basic norms,” (Erikson 1962: 309). This analogy provides powerful imagery of how the social system functions and the reason for why deviance is seen as such a threatening act. He further draws a comparison between the law and the norm arguing that both are reinforced by consistently being “used as a basis for judgment,” (Erikson 1962: 310). The entanglement of

Revenge means inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he or she did. Retribution is the rational theory supported the offender deserves punishment appropriate to the level of his crime. Punishment is not based on hatred for the criminal. When a society fails to punish criminals in a way thought to be proportionate to the severeness of the crime. The danger arises that the public would take the law into its own hands, resulting in vigilante justice, lynch mobs, and private acts of retribution. The outcome is likely to be an anarchist State sure injustice "declared by Louis p. Pojman Professor Emeritus of philosophy at West Point Military Academy.

The passion to deliver justice in all situations is interconnected to distributive justice and corrective justice. In corrective justice, offenders are expected to be disciplined for their evil deeds and this corresponds with my value and passion for justice. The application of correction justice is also associated with morality which plays a significant role. This is because of the relationship with law and morality and the need, as a criminal justice professional, to understand how and where to draw the line between law. The challenge in correctly identifying a distinct relationship between morality and law is ignited by the observation that law does not include every moral concern. For example, while it may be agreed by a majority of citizens that lying, in most instances is immoral; there are others that may argue that specific laws barring lying do not exist, safe for laws that forbid perjury, numerous types of fraud and additional institutions. The linkage between morality and law can thus be seen as tricky because it is possible to engage in what may broadly be perceived as an immoral act, yet the act is not illegal. Thus, it can be assumed that a person may be perceived as a good person that does the right thing does not necessarily qualify being a law-abiding person. Therefore, it emerges that the issue of morality and law should be

Daily we are faced with the perpetual issue of good versus evil? Right versus wrong, all the while attempting to find a safe middle ground on which to stand so we may distance ourselves from distasteful situations. Humanity often finds itself standing idly by, allowing others to make the hard decisions, letting apathy take over and being blindly lead. Nevertheless, for some this blind faith is not always a viable option

“Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.” This quote by Confucius discusses the issue of when something unfair happens to someone, and they wish to properly punish those who are responsible. Confucius, however, understands that while getting revenge may give a few moments of satisfaction, ultimately you and others will be harmed in the process, and the void of revenge will never be filled. This is proven in Alexander Dumas’ novel, The Count of Monte Cristo, where a wrongfully imprisoned man named Edmond Dantes changes his entire life in order to torment those responsible for his misery. Guided by his anger due to his unspeakable pain, Dantes vows to punish the wicked through slow suffering. He accomplishes his plan, yet hurts innocent others while doing so and is left feeling incomplete, proving that justice should be achieved through peaceful interaction.

Most people like to believe that they live in a world unobstructed by corruption; a world of justice and fairness, where everything has a purpose and things happen with reason. Yet oftentimes such fairness does not necessarily exist. Individuals are sent to death for crimes they didn't commit, governments pass legislation in favor of the few, and in the case of The Tragedy of Hamlet, the Shakespearean masterpiece, parents may face untimely deaths at the hands of enemies. This, of course, commences a cycle of revenge, a cycle where an equilibrium of justice is attempted to be reached through retribution. But much too often this cycle of retribution has little thought. Despite following a procedure with valid, emotional roots and a lengthy

Natural law theory is based on human nature and its predisposition to do good. The determination of what’s good and evil, however, is often drawn

The death penalty has been present, in one way or another, for virtually as long as human civilization has existed. The reasons why are apparent; it is intrinsically logical to human beings that a person who takes the life of another should also be killed. This philosophy is exemplified in the famous Biblical passage, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." However, in light of recent research into ethics, criminology and the justice system, the time has come for us to re-examine our ageless paradigm of revenge.

Dantes is forced into jail for fourteen years by four men without a trial or a chance to prove his innocence. Not even he knew the real reason why he was put into jail so that led him to believe that there is only one way to get back at the men who put him in jail: revenge. Although Dantes turned to God while he was in jail, it did not stop him from feeling like it was morally just to seek revenge on the men that did him wrong. During this time Dantes thought that vengeance could stand for justice because he believed that seeking out the wrongdoing of the other men and standing up for what was right was the moral thing to do.

This paper is on the Classical School theory that emerged in the eighteenth century; two writes of this period were Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Among the major ideas that descend from this theory are the concepts of humans as free-willed, rational beings, utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number), civil rights and due process of law, rules of evidence and testimony, determinate sentencing, and deterrence. The writes during this period examined not only human nature but also social conditions as well. The Classical School, gave us a humanistic conception of how law and criminal justice system should be constructed. Law was to protect the rights of both society and individual, and its chief purpose was to deter criminal behavior, the law emphasized moral responsibility and the duty of citizens to consider full the consequences of behavior before they acted. This thinking required humans possessing free will and a rations nature.

The Count of Monte Cristo, by Alexandre Dumas is an adventure and historical fiction novel that encompasses forgiveness, power, and vengeance. The story follows the adventure of Edmond Dantès, who dedicated the rest of his life to getting vengeance on the men who crossed him. Critics Justin Kaplan and Bryan Aubrey both explain their views on Dumas’ work, in great detail. Kaplan, in Treasure and Vengeance, speaks of his own life, and connects it with Dumas’ work. Aubrey, in his critical essay, on the other hand analyzes Dumas’ piece strictly based upon Edmond’s morality.

This essay will consider what legal punishment is; it will draw a distinction between the two main categories.[3] It will focus on utilitarianism