Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Inherit the wind literary analysis essay
The theme of inherit the wind
Inherit the wind essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
To most, the job of the defendant is usually seen as being far more easy in comparison to the prosecution’s side. This is because of the famous phrase: “innocent until proven guilty”. The idea that the defendant’s job is easier is put to the test in a play that is named Inherit the Wind by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee. The defendant, Henry Drummond, has to defend Bert Cates. A man that has broken a strictly enforced law in Hillsboro, and a man that everyone knows is guilty of breaking the law. Hence, Drummond has to be clear in his arguments against the law and put the law on trial, so that the people realize that this is an unjust law. He has to convince the people that the law is wrong. Henry Drummond’s arguments presented against the …show more content…
They only care about what's “popular” at the moment. They go along with whoever seems to be “in the right” at the moment. Nevertheless, they do cause a fair amount of progress throughout this play. They do this by opening up their minds to the arguments presented by Henry Drummond for Bert Cates. However, most were on the prosecution’s side at the start of the trial. On the side of Matthew Harrison Brady and Tom Davenport. They strongly supported Brady at the start of the trial. Brady says, “Did you hear that, my friends? ‘Old World Monkeys’! According to Mr. Cates, you and I aren't even descended from good American monkeys! (There is laughter)”(Lawrence and Lee 69). Brady was getting all of the love and affection from the audience at first, they were like his minions and he was the leader. They laughed when he laughed because they always thought that he was right. But, Drummond received more and more approval of his arguments of his arguments against the prosecutor as time went on. “ (Reaching for a sympathetic ear, trying to find the loyal audience which has slipped away from him) My friends- Your honor- My followers..” (Lawrence and Lee 101). The audience was shifting on over to Cates’s side and becoming more clear with Drummond’s arguments as time moves forward. This does cause progress for Drummond and reveals that he is justified because they opened their minds and allowed the idea that everyone has the right to think come across their heads. Drummond’s arguments are justified, thus making the crowd at the trial become more open to his
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
The novel Theodore Boone: Kid Lawyer has a very in-depth conflict that is showcased all throughout the novel. In Theo's community, there is a high-profile murder trial about to begin. Mr. Pete Duffy, a wealthy business man, is accused of murdering his wife Myra Duffy. The prosecutors have the idea that Mr. Duffy did it for the one million dollar insurance policy he took out on his wife earlier, however they have no proof to support this accusation (Grisham 53). The defendants do however have the proof that no one saw the murder, for all everyone knew, Mr. Duffy was playing his daily round of golf at the golf course right by his house. As the trial moved on, the jury was starting to lean towards letting Mr. Duffy walk a free man. To this point, there has been no proof to support the prosecutors statements that Mr. Duffy killed h...
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
There are many ways to decide what makes a man guilty. In an ethical sense, there is more to guilt than just committing the crime. In Charles Brockden Browns’ Wieland, the reader is presented with a moral dilemma: is Theodore Wieland guilty of murdering his wife and children, even though he claims that the command came from God, or is Carwin guilty because of his history of using persuasive voices, even though his role in the Wieland family’s murder is questionable? To answer these questions, one must consider what determines guilt, such as responsibility, motives, consequences, and the act itself. No matter which view is taken on what determines a man’s guilt, it can be concluded that Wieland bears the fault in the murder of Catharine Wieland and her children.
Yet with the help of one aged yet wise and optimistic man he speaks his opinion, one that starts to not change however open the minds of the other eleven men on the jury. By doing this the man puts out a visual picture by verbally expressing the facts discussed during the trial, he uses props from the room and other items the he himself brought with him during the course of the trial. Once expressed the gentleman essentially demonstrate that perhaps this young man on trial May or may not be guilty. Which goes to show the lack of research, and misused information that was used in the benefit of the prosecution. For example when a certain factor was brought upon the trail; that being timing, whether or not it took the neighbor 15 seconds to run from his chair all the way to the door. By proving this right or wrong this man Juror #4 put on a demonstration, but first he made sure his notes were correct with the other 11 jurors. After it was
The trial in Hillsboro is an allegory for the situation in the 1950s. In the 50’s, the government condemns people who supported Communism; thus leading to the censorious climate of McCarthyism. In addition to the witch-hunt and anti-Communist hysteria, regional conflicts between northern and southern states in the east of America. Laurence and Lee wrote the play to parallel some of conflicts of idea and subtly review them to the people. It was the method of exploring the major themes in the theses conflicts between intellectuals and believers, thinkers vs. narrow mindedness, and the relationship between the perception of others and self worth. Ultimately, Inherit the Wind encourages the right to think and the freedom of thought. In the attacking the value of free thought and speech upon which this country is built, nothing is obtained just like the situation in which Brady attacks his own house and inherits the wind—nothing.
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.
The U.S. criminal justice system is considered to be an adversarial system consisting of two sides, the prosecution and defense. It is believed that both sides enter the trial on equal grounds and present evidence to represent and help support their case. However, throughout the proceedings both the prosecution and defense have two very different ethical roles, responsibilities and duties, which tends to cast doubt on both sides remaining equal.
In Robert Penn Warren’s All The King’s Men, The Case of the Upright Judge is used to show Jack firsthand how a person’s actions affect others and that every action has a reaction and that chains of events is never truly broken. An irreverent former student of history, Jack Burdren abandoned his dissertation on Cass Mastern because of his inability to connect with him and to see cause and effect, to understand why Mastern wanted to die. Jack did not come to understand the importance of the past until much later in his life, when his dealings with Judge Irwin rattle him to his core, making him question everything he had always known, both about Idealism and about Irwin, and making him face death once again. Because of the dirt that he was made
Moot courts also teach professionalism and ethics to students of law, to apply law to fact, to structure and rank a legal argument by strength, and not to assert losing propositions. They provide law students opportunities to improve their legal writing, legal research, and oral advocacy in a competitive environment that prepares students for a competitive world. The moot court experience is perhaps the most important activity in law school. It is the activity that fully develops the skill every lawyer must possess: advocacy. Regardless of practice area, all lawyers must communicate in a way that advances their client’s interests, whether in a courtroom or boardroom. Most important, moot court builds character. Every student competitor “will be a better lawyer, and a better person, because of the moot court experience.”
Wallace had Malcolm Ray Hunter Jr. as his defense attorney, while Gaskins had Jack Swerling (“FindLaw's Supreme Court of North Carolina Case Opinions,” Swerling). In 1982, Swerling was appointed by the justice system to defend Gaskins (Swerling). Even though Gaskins could not afford a lawyer, he was still given one to avoid the Supreme Court from hearing him claim that the trial was unfair because he had no one to defend him. Swerling has practiced “defending individuals accused of crimes” for over 40 years (“Federal Criminal Practice”). Gaskins did not just get a lawyer, he got an experienced lawyer, this is more than enough of what can be provided by the court system to help Gaskins, therefore, this seals every claim that there is not a fair trial in Gaskin’s case. Swerling claims that he has approximated defending 150 murderers (Swerling). With a lawyer with so much experience, even he could not get Gaskins out from underneath the federal law. Gaskins was not found guilty because of a bad lawyer, but rather he had a respectable upstanding lawyer to defend him. Wallace and Gaskins were both assisted in their defense and they still received the punishment that they deserved
Innocent until proven guilty can go a long way for someone with help from bystanders. They are much needed for cases without their help almost every time the wrong person might be put behind bars. In the texts of Stand-up and “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson they delve deep into the importance of speaking up for what is wrong and making it right. Bystanders are guilty if they witnessed a crime that they knew was wrong they should help them before it escalates out of hand.
The clashing of the different personalities of jurors proved to be a major source of the conflict in the play. Even though the jurors in the play 12 angry men with their different personalities and viewpoints had many quarrels throughout the trial, they ended coming together and agreeing to acquit the boy of his crimes. This shows that even though our individual personalities and those of others around us are different, we can still come together and actively open ourselves to the different perspectives and ideas to achieve something important.
Inherit the Wind is a play written by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee. It is based upon the monkey trial of 1925. Henry Drummond is the defense attorney for Bertram Cates. While Matthew Harrison Brady is the prosecuting attorney. Cates is on trial for teaching the theory of evolution, rather than the teachings of the holy bible. Rachel Brown is the 22-year-old daughter of Reverend Jeremiah Brown. She is someone who dislikes controversy. Rachel is a fearful character at the beginning of the play. She is a character that is transforms throughout the play, through her experiences and the decisions she decides to make. The reader can truly realise Rachel’s transformation by comparing her character in the first and the last act of the play.