Death Penalty In John Steinbeck's Of Mice And Men

Throughout the novel, Lennie is put to the test against obstacles he has to overcome; he always turns to George for the right answer. Lennie trusts George to make the right decision for him. When Curley was fighting Lennie, Lennie was covering his face with his hand until George screams, “Get ‘im, Lennie” and instantly Lennie puts his hand on Curley and breaks the bones in his hand (Steinbeck 63). Lennie can’t think for himself and never truly means to be mean. Lennie doesn’t know how to control his own body, “He was so little… I was jus’ playin’ with him…an’ he made like he’s gonna bite me…an’ I made like I was gonna smack him… an’…an’ I done it. An’ then he was dead” (Steinbeck 87). In other words, it foreshadows that he is too strong for his own mind and that something potentially worse could happen. Sadly, George made the right decision for Lennie by killing him to prevent future suffering and

There is a time where killing is a justified action. Times like this our self-defense, war, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Another great example is in the book, by John Steinbeck, Of Mice and Men. George had to kill Lennie because Lennie’s punishment could have been worse, Lennie is not safe to be around, and George realized Lennie would never get better and the dream would never come true.

One reason that Lennie definitely shouldn’t have crushed Curley’s hand is because Curley already felt upset and annoyed with him. When George and Lennie first arrived at the ranch they went to the bunkhouse.

On one end of the argument is the belief that all human lives are of equal merit, because they are humans it gives them equal merit. Therefore no human should ever take the life of another, even if that individual has taken other lives. This argument is mostly favored by people of religious faith, but there are some sensible individuals who also adhere to this as an ethical position. At the other end of the spectrum is an argument in favor of the death penalty because of its ability to get rid of a problematic human so that they will be able to do no more harm. This is a very utilitarianism-like perspective of the death penalty. To examine this perplexing ethical dilemma one must first figure out their stance on what death is, like Socrates would.

Killing another is nowhere near “justifiable”. Imagine this, someone close to you is framed for a murder they didn’t commit. If your state had the death penalty, they could be punished for nothing. There are many other situations when killing another is unacceptable and wrong. Killing someone takes away the meaning of their life. It will hurt those around them and those close to them. We were all put on this Earth for a reason and everyone should be able to achieve the goals they want to in their life. Whether it’s capital punishment, euthanasia,or the case of George and Lennie, killing others is an unjustifiable act.

In the book, Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, there are many human and animal deaths all throughout the book. The most significant death was when George went against his will and killed Lennie. Lennie’s death was unjustified since he was never given any opportunity to make up for it or to just run and get away. After Lennie killed Curley’s wife no one could trust him and with that the workers on the ranch believed it was Lennie’s “turn” to die. Over the course of human history there have been many unjustified deaths leading to no charge against the assailants. Such as, death row, self-defense and euthanasia, these types of deaths are all unjustified and there are many reasons to authenticate it.

“And George raised the gun and steadied it, and he brought the muzzle of it close to the back of Lennie's head. The hand shook violently, but his face set and his hand steadied. He pulled the trigger.” George has just killed his best friend (Steinbeck 106). In John Steinbeck’s 1937 novella Of Mice and Men, George Milton and Lennie Small are a pair of pals that travel across California in search of work in the 1930s. With Lennie’s simple-minded thinking, he runs George and himself into trouble which costs them their job. The pair finally settles at a ranch somewhere in rural California after getting chased out of their last job. After a while, the inevitable happens and Lennie does something that does not look good for him, which causes men from the ranch to go chasing after him with the intent of killing him. Lennie flees to a nearby river where George meets him. To spare Lennie from the mental suffering of people always getting frustrated with him and criticizing his mistakes, George takes his life in an act of mercy.

Killing someone for killing someone else is not an appropriate punishment. According to the Constitution the death penalty is uncivil. The Eighth Amendment bars cruel and unusual punishment, and that’s what a lot of people say the death penalty is. People that have family members killed aren’t wanting the other person killed, just locked up. In 2015 Dylann Roof opened fire in a church and killed nine people. Melvin Graham was one of the victim’s brother and said “Even the ugliest of criminals should not be killed by the state.” Not only is the death penalty uncivil, many people get wrongfully accused.

(Death Row on Trial 2001: video) Religiously, the death penalty can also be morally justified because the Bible states “an eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:23-27) which can be interpreted as a life for a life.

Lennie was mentally impaired, so he did not know what he was doing when he killed Curley’s wife. He didn’t deserve to get shot in the head. Lennie definitely did not deserve to be shot by George,his best friend. In the book, George goes to find Lennie before Curley can get to him. He finds him in the brush where George told him to hide at the beginning of the book. Lennie asks if George is gonna give him hell. George responds with, “Give ya hell?” This shows that even George knows that Lennie did not know what he was doing. Lennie was an innocent character who was shot for something he didn’t mean to do.

If I were to ask you if killing someone is justifiable, some will answer with a strong no and others like me might say it depends on what they did. However, that is a job for the police to investigate and figure out. No human being kills another without some sort of

Life is sacred. This is an ideal that the majority of people can agree upon to a certain extent. For this reason taking the life of another has always been considered the most deplorable of crimes, one worthy of the harshest available punishment. Thus arises one of the great moral dilemmas of our time. Should taking the life of one who has taken the life of others be considered an available punishment? Is a murderer's life any less sacred than the victim's is? Can capital punishment, the death penalty, execution, legal murder, or whatever a society wishes to call it, be morally justifiable? The underlying question in this issue is if any kind of killing, regardless of reason, can be accepted. In this

Perhaps most importantly, one must consider the basic ethical question of hypocrisy. We must ask ourselves, "What type of message are we as a nation sending to the rest of the world and to our own citizens when we kill people who kill people to show that it is wrong to kill people?" By executing murderers, we are merely lowering ourselves to their level in order to express our primitive desire for retribution. Our society can never be called moral or democratic if we begin sacrificing individuals, without their consent, to 'the greater good.' Since capital punishment is supposedly intended to protect and avenge innocent lives, it has failed its purpose if, as it undoubtedly has and will, it causes even a few blameless people to be killed. The

In life there is always going to be something that is flawed with the death penalty. The reason being is because of human error. Human error happens a lot and sometimes it

No issue posed by capital punishment is more disturbing to the public than the prospect that the government might execute innocent people. Proponents to the death penalty are, of course, also against executing an innocent person (Hook and Kahn 91). Most everyone would agree that killing someone is wrong. Proponents and opponents agree that murder is a heinous act and should be punished. Despite their hatred for those who kill, proponents support the killing of murderers as a just punishment for their deviant behaviors. In this sense, execution can be termed, “legal murder” because “executions shares enough of the characteristics of murder to be counted as part of the general category: it includes a victim who does not want to die, and an agent that nonetheless kills [the victim]” (Yanich 98]. Murder is synonymous with kill, as found in the Britannica- Webster Dictionary. To kill is to deprive one of life or to put one to death and murder implies motive and intent or premeditation. With respect