Claudia Espinoza
Ms. Walsh
English 9 HP
6 December 2015
Guilty or Not Guilty
Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Claudia Espinoza, and I am the prosecutor of the case of Jack Merridew and Simon. Thank you for bringing your attention to this matter and listening to what I have to say. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is a difference between self-defense and an over-reaction. There is also a difference between what establishes reasonable doubt, and what adds up to just excuses made by the defendant. It has been confessed by many other little boys that Simon was stabbed repeatedly by Jack and the rest of them with sharp spears. They claim to have thought the poor boy was a “beast”, but this action is still considered murder, whether accidental …show more content…
Although the setting was indeed nighttime and the weather was haywire, Jack clearly knew what he was doing. There is evidence to prove that he was not satisfied with the kill. “He came- disguised. He may come again even though we gave him the head of our kill to eat. So watch; and be careful”(160). Jack said this to the boys when they started interrogating him about the true death of the so-called “beast”. They all had doubts, so Jack gave them his excuse. How could he know the beast was disguised if it was too dark for any of the boys to see in the first place? This is proof that Jack was clearly aware of what he had just killed. Another denial Jack had stated is, “No! How could we-kill-it?”(160). So, now Jack is denying that they had killed a creature altogether. Regardless of the denials, he has still committed a crime and it is an important principle that people in our society be held accountable for their actions. Now we do not always like being held accountable, nor do we own up to things we have done, but we all have to face the consequences of our own actions. No matter the age or whether they were on an island or not. Any argument that Jack makes amount to plain
Ms. Walsh
English 9 HP
6 December 2015
Guilty or Not Guilty
Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Claudia Espinoza, and I am the prosecutor of the case of Jack Merridew and Simon. Thank you for bringing your attention to this matter and listening to what I have to say. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is a difference between self-defense and an over-reaction. There is also a difference between what establishes reasonable doubt, and what adds up to just excuses made by the defendant. It has been confessed by many other little boys that Simon was stabbed repeatedly by Jack and the rest of them with sharp spears. They claim to have thought the poor boy was a “beast”, but this action is still considered murder, whether accidental …show more content…
Although the setting was indeed nighttime and the weather was haywire, Jack clearly knew what he was doing. There is evidence to prove that he was not satisfied with the kill. “He came- disguised. He may come again even though we gave him the head of our kill to eat. So watch; and be careful”(160). Jack said this to the boys when they started interrogating him about the true death of the so-called “beast”. They all had doubts, so Jack gave them his excuse. How could he know the beast was disguised if it was too dark for any of the boys to see in the first place? This is proof that Jack was clearly aware of what he had just killed. Another denial Jack had stated is, “No! How could we-kill-it?”(160). So, now Jack is denying that they had killed a creature altogether. Regardless of the denials, he has still committed a crime and it is an important principle that people in our society be held accountable for their actions. Now we do not always like being held accountable, nor do we own up to things we have done, but we all have to face the consequences of our own actions. No matter the age or whether they were on an island or not. Any argument that Jack makes amount to plain