Examining Human Alienation in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley Essay

     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is hailed as one of the greatest novels dealing with the human spirit ever to be written.   Shelley wrote this nineteenth century sensation after her life experiences.   It has been called the first science fiction novel.   Shelley lived a sad, melodramatic, improbable, and tragically sentimental life.   She was the daughter of Mary Wollstonecraft, the brilliant pioneer feminist in the late eighteenth century.   However due to complications in childbirth and inept medical care, Shelley's mother passed away soon after her birth.   Later on, Shelley married the famous romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley.   Mary Shelley's masterpiece, Frankenstein, was inspired partly by Milton's Paradise Lost: "Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay To mould me Man, did I solicit thee From darkness to promote me?" The novel explores the theme of how society can ruin good through human alienation.   Shelley powerfully expresses that theme through the development of Victor Frankenstein's failed aspirations, the creature's plight, and the inevitable destruction of Frankenstein.   Ã‚  Ã‚   Frankenstein is a novel about a creature that was made by a scientist driven by ambition.   It first introduces Victor Frankenstein, the protagonist, and his interest in science.   However, he doesn't have an interest in modern science as his father wishes, he is appealed by the fascinations of alchemy and mystical sciences. "It was the secrets of heaven and earth that I desired to learn; and whether it was the outward substance of things or the inner spirit of nature and the mysterious soul of man that occupied me, still my inquiries were directed to the metaphysical, or in its highest sense, the physical secrets of the ... ...Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1992. 245-58. Merriman, C.D. The Literature Network. Jalic Inc, 2006. Web. 28 March 2010. http://www.online-literature.com/shelley_mary/ Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Ed. Scott Elledge. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 1975. Poovey, Mary. "My Hideous Progeny: Mary Shelley and the Feminization of Romanticism". PMLA (1980): 332-347. Web. 29 March 2010. http://www.jstor.org/stable/461877?seq=2 Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein Or, The Modern Prometheus. New York: New American Library, 1963. Print. Smith, Johanna M. Introduction: Biographical and Historical Contexts. Frankenstein. By Mary Shelley. 2000. 2nd ed. Bedford/St. Martins, 2000. Web. Wolf, Leonard. The Annotated Frankenstein. New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1977.

Ghandi Speech Essay

To what extent does Gandhi use relatively simple syntax, expressing ethos and pathos, to appeal to a larger audience. The ‘Quit India’ speech was given by Mahatma Gandhi on August 8th of 1942. â€Å"Let me explain my position clearly†, Gandhi said, to begin his first point. He uses very simple syntax when giving this speech because he wants his points to be made more â€Å"clearly†. Throughout the whole speech, Gandhi’s speaks using very basic language, therefore appealing to a much larger audience, of people rather than a select few. Gandhi uses ethos and pathos in order to captivate and enthrall his audience. Gandhi said â€Å"I want you to know and feel that there is nothing but purest Ahimsa in all that I am saying and doing today.† He addresses the audience using â€Å"you† to make everything more direct and personal. Ethos and pathos is also used throughout this speech to gain credibility of the people, motivating them into  "joining† the â€Å"Quit India† movement he is advertising. â€Å"It is to join a struggle for such democracy that I invite you today.†, Gandhi said. â€Å"The power, when it comes, will belong to the people to the people of India, and it will be for them to decide to whom it placed and entrusted.† Promoting congress and rejecting dictatorship are the two biggest topics Gandhi is trying to support in this speech. And that is why the above excerpt is such an important sentence to the speech. Another strategy Ghandi incorporated was the repetition of the word â€Å"we† throughout the whole speech. This was to designate that he is the voice of the people of India, not merely voicing out his own individual opinion. â€Å"We must get rid of this feeling. Our quarrel is not with the British people, we fight their imperialism.† When giving a speech, it is crucial to know who your intended audience is. That way it will make it easier for you to persuade them since you know what they are about. Mahatma Ghandi used this indication in order to persuade his audience and made his speech meaningful. In â€Å"Quit India†, he used simple sentences and being more informal in order to attract and keep the audience’ attention. Overall, the power of speech is so incredible and can impact more than just the intended audience. But in order for that to occur, the speaker must choose their words wisely, not just jotting down everything that comes to mind when given a topic. Not everyone wants to read something that is serious and not everyone is literate, especially during the time Mahatma Ghandi was delivering this speech. Therefore, putting together and  delivering this speech was important in order to attract people from all different ethnicities and political views. â€Å"Quit India† was not just a speech intended for a select audience, but it is a speech intended for ev ery human being to hear and interpret in their own way. That is the genius of Gandhi’s basic, yet meaninful, and relatable, syntax used through this speech.

What Is Entrapment Definition, Standards, Cases

Entrapment is a defense used in criminal court when a government agent has induced a defendant to commit a crime. In the U.S. legal system, the entrapment defense serves as a check on the power of government agents and officials. Key Takeaways: Entrapment Defense Entrapment is an affirmative defense that must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.In order to prove entrapment, a defendant must first show that a government agent induced the defendant to commit a crime. The defendant must also show that he or she was not predisposed to commit the crime prior to government intervention. How to Prove Entrapment Entrapment is an affirmative defense, which means that the defendant carries a burden of proof. It can only be used against someone who works for a government body (e.g. state officers, federal officers, and public officials). Entrapment is proved by a preponderance of the evidence, which is a lower burden than reasonable doubt. In order to prove entrapment, a defendant must show that the government agent induced the defendant to commit a crime, and that the defendant was not predisposed to engage in criminal conduct. Offering the defendant an opportunity to commit a crime is not considered inducement. For example, if a government agent asks to buy drugs, and the defendant readily gives the officer illegal substances, the defendant has not been entrapped. In order to show inducement, a defendant must prove that the government agent persuaded or coerced them. However, inducement does not always have to be threatening. A government agent might make a promise so extraordinary in exchange for a criminal act that a defendant cannot resist the temptation. Even if a defendant can prove inducement, they must still prove that they weren’t predisposed to commit the crime. In an effort to argue against entrapment, the prosecution might use the defendant’s prior criminal acts to persuade the jury. If the defendant does not have a past criminal record, the prosecution’s argument becomes more difficult. They might ask the jury to determine the defendants state of mind prior to committing the induced offense. Sometimes, the judge and jury might consider the defendants eagerness to commit the crime. Entrapment Defense: Subjective and Objective Standards Entrapment is a criminal defense, which means it comes from common law, not constitutional law. As a result, states can choose how they want to apply entrapment defenses. There are two applications or standards that states commonly adopt: subjective or objective. Both standards require the defendant to first prove that government agents induced the crime. Subjective Standard Under the subjective standard, jurors consider both the actions of the government agent and the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime in order to determine which was the motivating factor. The subjective standard shifts the burden back to the prosecution to prove that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that if the defendant wants to prove entrapment, the government agent’s coercion must be so extreme that it is clearly the main reason for committing the crime. Objective Standard The objective standard asks jurors to determine if the actions of an officer would have led a reasonable person to commit a crime. The mental state of the defendant does not play a role in objective analysis. If the defendant successfully proves entrapment, they are found not guilty. Entrapment Cases The following two cases offer useful examples of entrapment law in action. Sorrells v. United States In Sorrells v. United States (1932), the Supreme Court recognized entrapment as an affirmative defense. Vaughn Crawford Sorrells was a factory worker in North Carolina who allegedly smuggled alcohol during prohibition. A government agent approached Sorrells and told him that he was a fellow veteran who had served in the same division during World War I. He repeatedly asked Sorrells for liquor, and at least twice Sorrells said no. Eventually, Sorrells broke down and left to get whiskey. The agent paid him $5 for the alcohol. Prior to that sale, the government had no solid evidence that Sorrells had ever smuggled alcohol in the past. The Court ruled that Sorrells’ attorneys could use entrapment as an affirmative defense.  In a unanimous opinion, Justice Hughes wrote that the crime â€Å"was instigated by the prohibition agent, that it was the creature of his purpose, that defendant had no previous disposition to commit it but was an industrious, law-abiding citizen.† The lower court should have allowed Sorrells to argue entrapment before a jury. Jacobson v. United States Jacobson v. United States (1992) dealt with entrapment as a matter of law. Government agents began to pursue Keith Jacobson in 1985 after he bought a copy of a magazine with nude photographs of minors. The purchase occurred before Congress passed the Child Protection Act of 1984. Over the course of two and a half years, government agents sent fake mailings from multiple organizations to Jacobson. In 1987, Jacobson ordered an illegal magazine from one of the governments mailing and picked it up at the post office. In a narrow 5-4 ruling, the Court majority found that Jacobson had been entrapped by government agents. His first purchase of child pornography could not show predisposition because he bought the magazine before it was illegal. He made no attempts to break the law prior to receiving the government’s fake publications. The court argued two and a half years of persistent mailings prevented the government from showing predisposition. Sources Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932).Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992).â€Å"Criminal Resource Manual - Entrapment Elements.†Ã‚  The United States Department of Justice, 19 Sept. 2018, www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-645-entrapment-elements.â€Å"The Criminal Defense of Entrapment.†Ã‚  Justia, www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/entrapment/.Dillof, Anthony M. â€Å"Unraveling Unlawful Entrapment.†Ã‚  The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 94, no. 4, 2004, p. 827., doi:10.2307/3491412.â€Å"Criminal Resource Manual - Entrapment Proving Predisposition.†Ã‚  The United States Department of Justice, 19 Sept. 2018, www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-647-entrapment-proving-predisposition.