Who Is Responsible For Jack's Downfall In Lord Of The Flies

As Jack hunts his “frustration seemed bolting and nearly mad” which shines in his slowly deranging eyes (Golding 67). In Lord Of The Flies by William Golding, stranded boys struggle to find order and civilization on an island with no other humans. After their plane crash lands, a few boys, such as Ralph and Piggy, are quick to set up standard rules. But, not everyone agrees that rules and rescue are what is most important. Jack, a boy who cares more about hunting, disrupts the goodness and order that remains in the boys. When a simulated hunting influenced and led by Jack goes awry, the boys kill Simon. The now deceased Simon is the purest and kindest of the boys. Jack leads the elimination of the only good left on their island. Whether it is his intention to kill him or not, Jack should be held responsible for Simon’s demise because he leads the group to kill him, regardless of his age.

Humans have the ability rise above in situations or stoop below and Jack makes his own decision to stray away to evil. Throughout his time

on the island, Jack has the “potential to ascend to a level even higher than the angels or descend to a level lower than animals” (Sachs). Similarly, predicaments like this evoke true decision making skills. Considering the situation all the boys are in, it makes sense their judgement is blurred over and disoriented. They feel frightened and confused. Jack’s first response is to attack with violence, to kill someone. His instinctual action is to tear apart a living, breathing person. Now, why boy or a man with vicious instincts not be held accountable for his actions? Jack kills Simon and he has to be held responsible for his terrifying actions.
Jack and the group have intentions to rip and claw apart what they are attacking, as Ralph once mentions, which in some regions is a reason to book someone for murder. A man, a woman, a child, anyone can be held for murder if they have “an extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life” (Mauro). Jack ruthlessly goes after Simon and sparks the other little boys to join. Though he is young, Jack completely ignores any kindness that Simon has shown him. As it appears now, Jack does not seem to care about anyone. His age is not a factor in the incident or in his feelings toward the other boys. Someone’s age does not affect their sanity. Jack tries and does kill someone. He kills a person and does not feel and guilt or regret. Authorities would not hesitate to lock up an adult for committing the same crime as Jack. Therefore, Jack should be held responsible because he is functioning in the mindset that human lives do not matter.
Though it could be argued that Jack is too young to truly make decisions for himself and Simon’s downfall was one accident.

But, it was not an accident because “we are born with evil in us and cruelty is part of this” (Golding). William Golding was searching for a way to display why children become vicious. When little kids are left to make their own choices, they do not always follow what an adult would. Children making decision for themselves usually causes them to play into their darker side. Consequently, that causes some people to believe that children are not aware of their decisions. But, everyone no matter what age has the choice to choose if they want to be good or evil. Sadly, Jack makes his choice to play into the alluring, corrupt side within him. His choice is extremely disheartening because a child has to face his extreme consequences. But, that does not win him empathy. Jack killed someone and he has to pay his dues for his

crime.