Who Is Killing Richard Strout Justified?

Matt strongly does not put up with Jamie’s family’s thoughts of selling the lake house. He becomes irritated with Linda and tells her “Me and Jamie do not owe you anything.” Linda’s reply of “you owe us everything, if Charlton had not taken you on you would never have been able to make a down payment on that lake house”. This only strengthens Matt’s decision to follow his dreams with Jamie. It is astounding that Matt and Jamie are looked down upon because their life together is

Good morning Mr Harrop and fellow peers. Today I will be analysing the moral issues and moral dilemmas in non-literary texts, so that we can understand and evaluate how test structures, language and visual features can be used to influence an audience response. An exemplar of many moral and ethical dilemmas is shown through popular sport inspiring movie, ‘Remember The Titans’ (Yakin, 2000) directed by Boaz Yakin. Yakins has a gift for dealing with controversial human issues, by facing the characters with racism, peer pressure and selfishness. Alongside the writer Gregory Allen Howard, they have utilized textual structures, language features and visual features to influence the audience's response.

In “The Death Penalty” (1985), David Bruck argues that the death penalty is injustice and that it is fury rather than justice that compels others to “demand that murderers be punished” by death. Bruck relies on varies cases of death row inmates to persuade the readers against capital punishment. His purpose is to persuade readers against the death penalty in order for them to realize that it is inhuman, irrational, and that “neither justice nor self-preservation demands that we kill men whom we have already imprisoned.” Bruck does not employ an array of devices but he does employ some such as juxtaposition, rhetorical questions, and appeals to strengthen his argument. He establishes an informal relationship with his audience of

There is no doubt in the readers minds that Strout is guilty of murdering Frank Fowler, but that does not change the overwhelming anguish and guilt that is felt by Matt after he shoots Strout. As Matt had led Strout through his house and into the bedroom, he could not help but notice the neatness of the house or the picture of Mary Ann and the boys on the wall down the hallway. Matt began to make a brief connection to the person who was standing before him; a connection that he had to dispose of quickly. After the murder, Matt is lying in bed thinking about Strout’s

Capital punishment is a subject full of controversy. When it comes to the topic of the death penalty, most of us will readily agree that it’s a grim subject. Where this agreement usually ends however, is on the question of how necessary it is. Whereas some are convinced that capital punishment is not only cruel its useless as well, others maintain that it is necessary for justice to be adequately served . In the article “The Penalty of Death” by H.L. Mencken the author addresses the objections against the death penalty as well as his stand on the whole issue while using several rhetorical strategies to not only get his viewpoint across but, make the reader really think about their own stand on the death penalty. Three of the most effective

In May of 1998, Kipland Kinkel brought a gun to his school. Over the course of two days this escalated from: being sent home, to murdering his father and mother, to murdering 2 students and wounding 26, earning a lifetime sentence of 111 years and 8 months in prison. In the court case being examined, the presiding judge addresses the original case, defendants ground for appeal, and the justification for the State’s decision to deny the appeal. Judge Haselton effectively uses ethos, logos, and pathos to support the Higher Court’s decision to deny the appeal because the original sentence was constitutional and just.

The beginning of any thought provoking essay will hook its audience using a form of pathos. “Two of his sons returned home from the battlefield whole and healthy. The third, however, came home suffering multiple seizures a day”-(Rorabacher). The quote generates sympathy within us making us yearn to see a welcoming outcome and leaving the audience hooked. Eli Hager’s article follows a similar route informing us that “The state of Missouri sent Harris to the penitentiary in Boonvilee, 250 miles from his home and baby daughter”-(Hager). Again we sympathize with the loss of a family, but not all of the articles used grievance to hook us. In the “Quiet Alarm” the audience is informed of a vaudeville performer who performed deadly stunts involving hatchets, pins, and guns on himself to generate shockwaves in the audience. From these examples we identify how our emotions lure us into these texts.

Mattie does not beat around the bush when it comes to justice. She has a fixed view on how law should be carried out against Tom Chaney and stops at nothing to achieve this. Put simply, Mattie wants him dead, and she wants him to know that he is dying as a result of him killing her father. This view and interpretation of justice closely resembles the “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” philosophy of the Code of Hammurabi where the life of Tom Chaney must be payed for

With the name “Killings” Dubus has already started his statement about these specific murders. If he were to use a phrase such as murders for the title, there would be an instant empathy towards the victim. Although he wants you to feel a little empathy towards Frank, I believe Dubus’s main point was to show the futility of enacting revenge. Throughout the whole story there is a motif of revenge that is masked behind the word justice. Since the earliest days of written record, there has been a philosophy, which has no become just a proverb, which stated, “An eye for an eye.” The whole idea behind this philosophy was that whenever a crime was enacted, the exact same crime was to be enacted upon the guilty party. As in the title exampled, if person A poked out person B’s eye, person A would have his eye removed. That idea of revenge is prevalent in this story. Rather than let what society has deemed justice, take it’s course, Matt decided that he could not wait any longer. Together with his friend Willis Trottier, Matt thought out a well calculated plan for murder.

For this paper, I will critique Wendell Phillip’s speech, “Murder of Lovejoy”, and examine it in relation to its history, audience, speaker, and purpose. It is considered one of the greatest rhetorical successes of the era, and one of the only speeches where the speaker’s goal can be seen taking effect. It is also notable for being both spontaneous and directly after an opposing speech.

Both men tend to work late nights; Trottier was a bartender, so Fowler meeting with him after hours was an easy alibi. The hardest part was getting Strout to a secluded place, which they were able to do by conning him at first, saying they had bought him a plane ticket and wanted him out of their lives so that everyone could move on. After leaving Strout's car at an apartment building in Boston, they lead Strout to a pre-dug hole in a wooded area where Fowler kills him. “The gun kicked in Matt’s hand, and the explosion of the shot surrounded him…Richard Strout, squirming on his belly pushed himself towards the woods. Then Matt went to him and shot him once in the back of the head (106).”

In the United States, the use of the death penalty continues to be a controversial issue. Every election year, politicians, wishing to appeal to the moral sentiments of voters, routinely compete with each other as to who will be toughest in extending the death penalty to those persons who have been convicted of first-degree murder. Both proponents and opponents of capital punishment present compelling arguments to support their claims. Often their arguments are made on different interpretations of what is moral in a just society. In this essay, I intend to present major arguments of those who support the death penalty and those who are opposed to state sanctioned executions application . However, I do intend to fairly and accurately

The man Vince Li, killed another man named Tim McLean however he was not convicted for this murder. He was found not criminal responsible for the crime. The reason for this is because they deemed him to have a mental illness. The symptoms Vince Li displayed was that he heard the voice of God, and that God told him that he is the second coming of Jesus. Also, he believed that he must prepare rescue himself from and upcoming alien invasion and that McLean was an alien. These are symptoms which lead to the mental disorder schizophrenia, this is what cause him to be found NCR for the murder. The key issue to this controversial case is the fact someone died and it would increase the negative perception of mental illness. Another issue is diagnosing

Lennie Small used to travel with George Milton, and they would work on ranches and things of the sort to one day earn enough money to have their own ranch and “Live off the fat of the land.” Of course this is all sent downhill when Lennie kills Curley’s wife. Curley being the son of the boss at the ranch. He didn’t mean to kill her, but he killed her none the less and he himself was killed because he killed her. That is the topic of this paper. Killers should be killed for what they have done. Killing is killing. All murderers should receive capital punishment.

A. Attention Getter: Thou shall not kill, only one of the ten commandments that some individuals unfortunately can not seem to uphold. What would the world look like if we did not have an “eye for an eye” mentality? The debate about whether or not capital punishment is ethical or immoral is significant because our country is spending unnecessary amounts on death penalty executions, in which citizens do not know enough about the subject matter to disagree or protest its use. While tax payers are paying for this procedure, the death penalty poses many moral insurrections.