Did Jefferson Hope Really Do The Right Thing?

Jefferson Hope, a man who was truly devastated by the death of his fiancé Lucy and her father Joseph. Deciding to take actions into his own hands, Hope plots a revenge spree on others due to the actions portrayed by the Mormon people. Because of his love for Lucy was tremendously robust Hope could not sit around and watch the justice fade away from her passing. Now for the real question, from a reader’s point of view did Jefferson Hope essentially do the right thing?
Love can cause a person to go blind when it comes to emotions and actions. Jefferson Hope believes that he needed to get revenge for the death of his fiancé caused by a broken heart due to the murder of her father. Therefore, Hope went out on a death-dealing motivation towards

the Mormons to seek vengeance. Just because his actions were true to his heart, it does not make his actions right to others.
"After the lapse of time that has passed since their crime, it was impossible for me to secure a conviction against them in any court.

I knew of their guilt though, and I determined that I should be judge, jury, and executioner all rolled into one. You'd have done the same, if you have any manhood in you, if you had been in my place." (Jefferson Hope, 113). Reading this quote from the text typifies the reasoning for his engagement; Jefferson realized he had to take action of the law personally. Obviously, the legal system would not do anything for the justice of John and Lucy, Hope is the one man who can avenge the murders for them. Because of that, Jefferson Hope is to some extent a relatable character, even with the murders of Drebber and Stangerson sitting on his shoulders. Holmes investigation later reveals that Hope is an intelligent man who may come across as ruthless and covetous notwithstanding the reasoning for his murders adds a sympathetic touch on

him.
In today’s society, many people tend to take on the diminutive effects that can lead to revenge on our behalf. For example, when someone physically or emotionally hurts a family member another person in that family who is more superior will more than likely take action to protect the person they care for. In that arrangement I do believe that revenge is justified. However, when it comes to murdering for love revenge has become unjustified. During this time period the setting was taken place, the judicial system had a limit as to how long someone could stay on trial unlike in today’s society. Today, someone can be held on trial until the jury finds them guilt or not guilt based on the evidence they have found; once the jury has come to a conclusion then the person can either be put in jail or set free from court. Since the system did not work like that during that specific time period the death of John and Lucy were gone unfulfilled.
Justification is a quintessential thought recognized differently by an individual’s way of thinking.

When somebody gets away with a crime some people can view them having a bad rep against their name as being justified while other people believe that validation isn’t present until they feel the same pain as we do. In my opinion I view justification on a scale depending on how awful of a crime the person committed. When I see a story of someone brutally abusing a person and they are found guilt I believe that what they did to that certain individual should be done onto them “what you do onto other shall be done onto you” is something I say and truly trust in my mind. When it comes to small crime such as stealing and DUIs and they are found guilty then a little jail time spent with other aggressive criminals is justice well served in my mind. On the other hand, when a person gets off from an absurd crime and then admits to being guilty for the crime they cannot be put back on trial for the same reasoning due to the laws protection of double jeopardy, then revenge is generally plotted by loved ones taken place by the anger and hatred they have for that

individual.