Natural Born Killers: Are Criminals Guilty?

Are the defendants guilty or not guilty? Reviewing the case, it seems the two young free-spirited lovers were motivated by the movie, Natural Born Killers, to commit such horrendous acts of murder. Many argue for the two young adults to be deemed not guilty because they were influenced by an external force. However, our world runs under a consequentialist standard because we only view what has happened, and therefore we must also give the final verdict of this case as viewed under a consequentialist perspective. Ben and Sarah are both guilty and must bear responsibility. First and foremost, Ben and Sarah were essentially fit for performing the murders. Their backgrounds give it away. Although Sarah was the “daughter of a state court judge in Muskogee, Oklahoma...uncle is the Attorney General of Oklahoma. Her grandfather once served as Congressman, and her great uncle was Governor and then later a U.S. Senator” (Grisham 2) she started using drugs and alcohol at the age of thirteen. At just fourteen years of age, Sarah was locked up for psychiatric treatment. She graduated from high school but ultimately dropped out of college. Ben’s parents were not prominent in politics, but Ben, too, has a “history of drug …show more content…
As Ben and Sarah prepared to go on a road trip, Sarah claimed that she “packed her father’s .38 just in case Ben happened to attack her for some reason” (Grisham 2). But if she had brought the gun wanting to protect herself, she most likely would not have shown the gun to Ben, but here it says that “…Ben removed the .38 and shot Mr. Savage in the head” (Grisham 3). The claim and what has happened do not line up, therefore it can be easily inferred that Sarah did not bring the gun to protect herself. Rather, she brought for other purposes. When the two were put on trial, they did not defend themselves, but rather blamed what crime the other