Since the beginning, this case has obviously been pinned against Ms. Justine Moritz without any solid evidence. “But I do not pretend that my protestations should acquit me; I rest my innocence on a plain and simple explanation of the facts which have been adduced against me.” (Shelly 65) The trial against her only lays on the fact that she had the necklace William was wearing. Yes, she confessed, but only because she was scared and confused. Why go off this flimsy evidence when the real murderer, the Creature, has confessed in full detail to what happened? Victor Frankenstein, who built the creature, holds a significant amount of guilt to what has happened, as he should. “Justine also was a girl of merit and possessed qualities which promised to render her life happy; now all was to be obliterated in an ignominious grave, and I the cause!” (Shelley 64)
“She had no temptation for such an action, as to the bauble on which the chief proof rests, if she had earnestly desired it, I should have willingly given it to her, so much I esteem and value her.” (Shelley 67) This is stated by Elizabeth at the beginning of the trial. Elizabeth says that Justine is very trustworthy and had no need to murder William for the necklace, because Elizabeth would have given it
…show more content…
to her if asked. With the necklace as the only proof to Justine being the murderer, this is an extremely weak case. Justine did confess to the murder, but it was not the truth.
“I did confess, but I confessed a lie. I confessed, that I might obtain absolution; but now that falsehood lies heavier at my heart than all my other sins.” (Shelley 69) She confessed because she hoped that by doing so, she may receive a lighter sentence. Even by confessing, it did not make any sense for her to have committed the crime. “By permission of Elizabeth, she has passed the evening of the night on which the murder had been committed at the house of Chêne, a village situated at about a league from Geneva.” (Shelley 65) She was nowhere near the area where William was, let alone near Geneva, therefore it makes no sense for her to be the
killer. However, it does make sense for someone else to be the criminal. The creature created by Frankenstein has the motive and the power to commit such a crime. He has even confessed! “I grasped his throat to silence him, and in a moment he lay dead at my feet.” (Shelley 122) He describes the exact way William had died, by strangulation. He even tells how Justine came into the possession of the portrait, “I bent over and placed the portrait securely in one of the folds of her dress.” (Shelley 123) While the creature is the killer, someone else is the true criminal. Victor Frankenstein. Victor created the creature and was the source of all his anger. He knew the truth, but kept it to himself. This caused the family much more grief than they needed to bear. Especially Elizabeth, as she blames herself for William’s death, because she gave him the necklace. “Oh God! I have murdered my darling child!” (Shelley 56) This exclamation came from Elizabeth when she saw the reason for William’s death, the portrait. All things considered, Justine Moritz did not commit this crime. She has been obviously been wrongly accused. She may have had the necklace with her, but that is not solid evidence that she committed the crime. She confessed out of fear, when the true killer, the creature, made a confession of his own. As the sole creator of this monster, the reason for its anger, Victor Frankenstein is to blame. The jury needs to consider these facts, this innocent woman is not to blame.
Victor's gradual descent towards the dark side of the human psyche is clearly portrayed through Shelley's writing. As stated in previous discussions, Victor's original motivation in pursuing a career in the science field was purely out of love for the world of science and a true passion for acquiring knowledge. However, as the novel continues, we witness his motives go from authentic to impure. As such, we delve into the dark side. His pursuit of knowledge and his creation of the monster are all on the purer or perhaps lighter side of the psyche. It isn't until he abandons him that we begin to see him cross over. His choices to abandon the creature, to let someone else to die for its crimes, to create it a companion only to kill her, to allow the ones he loved to die at its hand, and to still refuse to claim it in the end are all acts
... truth. He sees her and knows they are better than him and so he refuses to turn her in or convict her of witchcraft. He yells at Danforth, “They think to go like saints. I like not spoil their names” (130). This was an indication of how good he thought the people who didn’t admit to the lie were and how he wanted to protect them. In the end, he decided to give his life for the truth, which was the most unselfish act he was able to do. He did it even though he was tempted to save his own life and be with Elizabeth.
Victor Frankenstein’s recollects his past before his mind in youth was plagued by his self destructive passions later on in his life. By reflecting on his past, he becomes keenly aware of the poor choices he has made which inevitably lead to the decimation of the innocence he used to possess in the past. The simile in this text compares the beginning of when he discovers his passions for natural philosophy, and his eventual demise caused by it, to the flow of a river which source was in the mountains. The serene nature of the mountain and river foreshadows the purity of Frankenstein’s being before the discovery of his passions, and the peak of that mountain symbolizes the height of this innocence. The many sources of water at the peak represents
While it is tempting to see the Shakespearean concept of rape entirely in such terms, such a view is not adequate to explain the complex interactions of dishonor, shame, and guilt found in The Rape of Lucrece. Carolyn Williams, by contrast, focuses on the tensions in early modern thought between a culture of "shame" and one of "guilt," two codes which differ not only in their account of the nature of the crime, but also in the consequences for the victim and the importance of her statements in determining her status. In the "shame culture," rape is "a crime against property," (like Harris’s definition) and "the victim’s refusal of consent…is irrelevant: her physical condition determines her status" (94). In the culture of "guilt," however, the woman is seen as a "responsible human agent." Therefore "her utterance is crucially important. Lack of consent defines the rape…Her ability to tell her story afterwards vindicates her honour" (95).
The setting for Mary Shelly's Frankenstein plays a very important role on both the significance and realism of the story. By the end of the 18th century, smallpox and cholera epidemics throughout Europe had claimed millions of lives and brought about a crisis of faith within both the Catholic and Protestant churches. The formerly profane practices of medicinal healing were only beginning to gain acceptance in major universities as hundreds of cities were put under quarantine for their diseases and high mortality rates. Interdisciplinary learning within the scientific community was unheard of. Had Victor Frankenstein been alive during this period, his practices would have been considered blasphemous. Much more so than Edward Jenner's research on smallpox during the same time, which would eventually save millions of lives in 1796. Frankenstein's intentions were good, but even during this modern age of genetic engineering and cloning, the story of his creation remains entirely evil. Contemporary thought has allowed for tremendous growth in genetic engineering in recent years; the evolution of science from the analytical engine to the modern PC has occurred thousands of times faster than the evolution of our own species, from ape to human.
“I do know that for the sympathy of one living being, I would make peace with all. I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other.”
Victor Frankenstein is innocent. There is no doubt in my mind that Victor Frankenstein is innocent for the murder of Justine, Elizabeth, and William. They were in fact killed by a man named, “The Creature.” He in fact killed the two of them to get revenge on the man who created him. The Creature was angry that everyone thought that he was ugly, and hated to be around him. It all started when Dr. Henry Clerval told Victor Frankenstein not to make the Creature because he would be one that destroys everything. Victor then got Dr. Clerval’s Journal after he had died, and he started to make the Creature. Once the Creature was all assembles and born he was brought to life by Frankenstein. Frankenstein was then afraid of his own creation and fled the lab. The creature then got out and found some clothes and made his way to the country side where he then found his way to the little house in the woods where the De Lacey family lived.
Although humans have the tendency to set idealistic goals to better future generations, often the results can prove disastrous, even deadly. The tale of Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, focuses on the outcome of one man's idealistic motives and desires of dabbling with nature, which result in the creation of horrific creature. Victor Frankenstein was not doomed to failure from his initial desire to overstep the natural bounds of human knowledge. Rather, it was his poor parenting of his progeny that lead to his creation's thirst for the vindication of his unjust life. In his idealism, Victor is blinded, and so the creation accuses him for delivering him into a world where he could not ever be entirely received by the people who inhabit it. Not only failing to foresee his faulty idealism, nearing the end of the tale, he embarks upon a final journey, consciously choosing to pursue his creation in vengeance, while admitting he himself that it may result in his own doom. The creation of an unloved being and the quest for the elixir of life holds Victor Frankenstein more accountable for his own death than the creation himself.
Next, let’s look at the most crucial piece of evidence in this case: the locket. The family heirloom that William took with him on the night of his homicide that somehow ended up on the person of Justine Moritz. Once again, the defense has neglected to account for this. With this evidence alone, you, the jury, should convict Justine Moritz for the tragic murder of William Frankenstein. How could the locket have been in the possession of the defendant unless she had taken it from the corpse of William? And, if she had taken it from the corpse of William, she must have been the one to cause his death.
Justine was killed because Victor Frankenstein’s younger brother, William, was murdered. An item that William was wearing during the night of the murder was found on Justine leading everyone to believe that Justine is the murderer. When Victor arrives back to Geneva and hears that Justine has been accused of the murder his reaction was, “Justine Mortiz! Poor, poor girl, is she accused? But it is wrongfully; everyone knows that; no one believes it, surely…”. Victor knew the Monster killed William and probably framed Justine. He knew Justine was innocent, but no one believed him. Justine was also forced to give a false confession, and was hanged. People dislike being insecure, like having a murderer loose among them, so they punish a scapegoat, like Justine, to ease their minds.
Analysis of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Analyzing a book can be a killer. Especially when it contains tons of subtle little messages and hints that are not picked up unless one really dissects the material. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a prime example.
Mary Shelley expresses various ethical issues by creating a mythical monster called Frankenstein. There is some controversy on how Mary Shelley defines human nature in the novel, there are many features of the way humans react in situations. Shelley uses a relationship between morality and science, she brings the two subjects together when writing Frankenstein, and she shows the amount of controversy with the advancement of science. There are said to be some limits to the scientific inquiry that could have restrained the quantity of scientific implications that Mary Shelley was able to make, along with the types of scientific restraints. Mary Shelley wrote this classic novel in such a way that it depicted some amounts foreshadowing of the world today. This paper will concentrate on the definition of human nature, the controversy of morality and science, the limits to scientific inquiry and how this novel ties in with today’s world.
He knows that he is responsible for it’s existence from the line, “a being whom [himself] had formed, and endued with life” (Shelley 60) but does not consider himself a factor when it comes to the deaths of William and Justine. At this point of the story Frankenstein mostly talks about how much he hates the monster instead of the possible danger his family is now put in, while he cannot help but feel guilty because the creature that he created has already killed two people he held dearly he still does not acknowledge his responsibility for the monster’s actions.
“It is impossible to be a maverick or a true original if you're too well behaved and don't want to break the rules.” This quote originated from the eminent, Arnold Schwarzenegger an Austrian-American actor. One of the key themes found in Gothic literature is transgression. In Marry Shelley's Frankenstein, transgression is frequently accompanied with male characters. In the novel, Robert Walton, Victor Frankenstein and the Creature attempt to break some rules but not the law. Sometimes they are successful other times they fail. As always there are consequences to one’s actions that go against the unwritten codes of conduct. The female characters are presented in light of those males, and a lesson can be can be understood from this difference
Have you ever wanted to hide something you have done? Have you ever lied to someone about an accident that you caused? Doing these, and a few others, make you human. Madame Loisel, in “The Necklace”, written by Guy De Maupassant, did a few of these things.