One Good Sex Deserves A Murder Download
Val Caltagirone
Who are the experts?
Our certified Educators are real professors, teachers, and scholars who use their academic expertise to tackle your toughest questions. Educators go through a rigorous application process, and every answer they submit is reviewed by our in-house editorial team.
I would agree that Macbeth deserves to die at the end of the play. He hasfallen so far and committed such heinous crimes (the murdering of Macduff'sfamily) that there is no hope left for him. He really has no choice but tofight for his life and accept death as the penalty for his failure.
I think Macbeth deserved to die, and that perhaps the noble death of dyingin battle was actually too good for him. His cowardly plots and murders meanthat he should have been executed, or killed himself, not die bravely on thebattle field. In the context of a warrior like Macbeth, his death in battle wasperhaps his only noble act in the play, and after having been such a rottentraitor.
While I agree that dying in battle was too good for the literary Macbeth,the history of Scotland at that time suggests that dying on the battlefield wasthe norm at that time, though. The historical Duncan (Duncan I) waskilled in battle and seven of the ten kings before him were also (of the threethat weren't one died of old age, one was murdered and the third was killedafter becoming a monk). Further, Macbeth died in battle as did Lulach,Malcolm (III), and Duncan II. Brother Donald Bane is the only exceptionof the time as he was actually imprisoned.
I think Macbeth deserved to die. This is a man so consumed with power thathe turns his back on his king-Duncan, his friend-Banquo, and in the end hisco-conspirator and wife-Lady Macbeth. He does not feel anything but sorryfor the way things end for himself, there is no remorse or reflection on whathis greed has brought him to.
This is an opinion response. If you feel that Macbeth took advantageof his free will and he was in full control of his actions, perhaps you wouldbe justified in this argument. On the other hand, if you feel thatMacbeth is a victim of his wife and the witches who fanned the flames of hisambition, perhaps this judgmet is a little harsh.
This is a personal response question, and it depends on how much yousympathize with the protagonist. Macbeth is a tragic hero, meaning a herothat is brought down by his own fatal flaw. His flaw has been uncheckedambition. He "wanted" so much that he allowed himself to act against hisbetter judgement, and he eventually spiraled out of control.
Personally, I think that Macbeth shows little remorse. When hecomments "out, out brief candle" in response to Lady Macbeth's death, he beginsa speech about the uselessness of his pursuits in the grand scheme oflife. However, despite his realization that he acted badly, he does notatone for it. He does not feel guilty about the murders he has committed,only that he has done so for little reason. He does not turn himself inand apologize, but stubbornly fights to the very end. For these reasons,I do believe he caused his own death and deserves it.
Each week, I look forward to Thursday night with more anticipation and excitement than the week prior.
That's what ABC's How To Get Away With Murder does to you. It just keeps on delivering an incredible hour of television. It's hard to think straight for days afterwards, and last night's episode was no exception.
The episode, titled "He Deserved To Die" was written by Warren Hsu Leonard and directed by Eric Stoltz. It's my favorite episode of this fantastic opening season thus far because it was oozing with my favorite character, Rebecca Sutter.
In an interesting shift, last night's episode was strictly serialized, with a case of the week absent from proceedings, which naturally allowed for Rebecca's screen time. The episode accomplished the task of deepening the main story arc with the court battles focusing on whether Lila Stangard's body should be exhumed for a second autopsy, while providing fans with the juiciest set of flash forwards we've seen to date.
Said flash forwards, portrayed the moments after Sam Keating was killed. We saw Rebecca covered in blood, standing like a statue, akin to what she used to defend herself. Wes was the man of the hour, arriving on the scene shortly after, and masterminding the plan to clean up the crime scene.
In present tense, the courtroom was front and center as Annalise Keating went toe to toe with the prosecution and co-defendants, with neither of the trio emerging overly victorious. The judge was, however, swayed enough to order Lila Stangard's body be re-examined, with the findings exonerating Rebecca to a certain degree, while forcing the direction of Annalise's focus to swing back toward her husband when it was revealed that Stangard was six weeks pregnant.
Rebecca and Wes also sealed the deal in one of this year's most fascinating and daring scenes, on par in my book with the acclaimed final moments of the series' fourth episode. I couldn't describe in words how much I loved Rebecca and Wes's bed scene being crossed with the second autopsy. This was masterful directing that brought two completely different, polar opposites in the form of new life and post death into perfect harmony. The macro photography used was outstanding, and the backing track, titled Vagaries of Fashion by Fujiya and Miyagi fit the moment in an eerily beautiful way.
Yet among Rebecca's appearances, the flash forwards and court scenes, the creative team still managed to find time to bring Laurel and Frank closer together, and find another fling or two for the openly gay Connor. We saw a boys night out, a girls night in, Michaela get a pre-nup dumped on her desk, and Nate provide further information to Annalise before confronting Rebecca in a convenience store with an offer that seems too good to be true.
Wes gave away a few more of his secrets, revealing he was born in Haiti and that his mother killed herself when he was 12. A passing joke by Annalise to her husband Sam told us the couple are childless but not without trying, with the word 'miscarriages' (note the plural) mentioned. Interestingly, it was also Sam who gave Annalise one of her big ideas, but the closeness they grew towards looks to have been decimated with the Stangard autopsy results.
But despite all this, it's the character development we saw in Rebecca that really made this episode for me. Rebecca really opened up, shedding her shy, vulnerable persona while making use of her keen eye and ear, and succeeding in getting under the skin of everyone with her articulate and decisive comments, bar Wes. Katie Findlay far outshone her fellow cast last night too.
Thanks for reading! What were your thoughts on last night's episode? Did you enjoy Rebecca as much as I did? Share your thoughts and theories in the comments below! Don't forget to follow How To Get Away With Murder's record-breaking ratings on my TV ratings website, www.seriesmonitor.com/howtogetawaywithmurder.
Jimmy.
About the Author - Jimmy Ryan Jimmy Ryan lives in New Zealand. He is an avid follower of drama television and has a keen interest for television ratings and statistics. Some of his favorite shows right now are Person of Interest, Scandal, House of Cards, Orphan Black, The Blacklist, The 100, and Castle. You can visit his television ratings website, www.seriesmonitor.com or follow him on Twitter, @SeriesMonitor. Recent Articles by Jimmy (All Articles by Jimmy) //
About 2000 men, women, and teenagers currently wait on America's "death row." Their time grows shorter as federal and state courts increasingly ratify death penalty laws, allowing executions to proceed at an accelerated rate. It's unlikely that any of these executions will make the front page, having become more or less a matter of routine in the last decade. Indeed, recent public opinion polls show a wide margin of support for the death penalty. But human rights advocates and civil libertarians continue to decry the immorality of state-sanctioned killing in the U.S., the only western industrialized country that continues to use the death penalty. Is capital punishment moral? Capital punishment is often defended on the grounds that society has a moral obligation to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens. Murderers threaten this safety and welfare. Only by putting murderers to death can society ensure that convicted killers do not kill again. Second, those favoring capital punishment contend that society should support those practices that will bring about the greatest balance of good over evil, and capital punishment is one such practice. Capital punishment benefits society because it may deter violent crime. While it is difficult to produce direct evidence to support this claim since, by definition, those who are deterred by the death penalty do not commit murders, common sense tells us that if people know that they will die if they perform a certain act, they will be unwilling to perform that act. If the threat of death has, in fact, stayed the hand of many a would be murderer, and we abolish the death penalty, we will sacrifice the lives of many innocent victims whose murders could have been deterred. But if, in fact, the death penalty does not deter, and we continue to impose it, we have only sacrificed the lives of convicted murderers. Surely it's better for society to take a gamble that the death penalty deters in order to protect the lives of innocent people than to take a gamble that it doesn't deter and thereby protect the lives of murderers, while risking the lives of innocents. If grave risks are to be run, it's better that they be run by the guilty, not the innocent. Finally, defenders of capital punishment argue that justice demands that those convicted of heinous crimes of murder be sentenced to death. Justice is essentially a matter of ensuring that everyone is treated equally. It is unjust when a criminal deliberately and wrongly inflicts greater losses on others than he or she has to bear. If the losses society imposes on criminals are less than those the criminals imposed on their innocent victims, society would be favoring criminals, allowing them to get away with bearing fewer costs than their victims had to bear. Justice requires that society impose on criminals losses equal to those they imposed on innocent persons. By inflicting death on those who deliberately inflict death on others, the death penalty ensures justice for all. This requirement that justice be served is not weakened by charges that only the black and the poor receive the death penalty. Any unfair application of the death penalty is the basis for extending its application, not abolishing it. If an employer discriminates in hiring workers, do we demand that jobs be taken from the deserving who were hired or that jobs be abolished altogether? Likewise, if our criminal justice system discriminates in applying the death penalty so that some do not get their deserved punishment, it's no reason to give Iesser punishments to murderers who deserved the death penalty and got it. Some justice, however unequal, is better than no justice, however equal. To ensure justice and equality, we must work to improve our system so that everyone who deserves the death penalty gets it. The case against capital punishment is often made on the basis that society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The taking of human life is permissible only if it is a necessary condition to achieving the greatest balance of good over evil for everyone involved. Given the value we place on life and our obligation to minimize suffering and pain whenever possible, if a less severe alternative to the death penalty exists which would accomplish the same goal, we are duty-bound to reject the death penalty in favor of the less severe alternative. There is no evidence to support the claim that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent of violent crime than, say, life imprisonment. In fact, statistical studies that have compared the murder rates of jurisdictions with and without the death penalty have shown that the rate of murder is not related to whether the death penalty is in force: There are as many murders committed in jurisdictions with the death penalty as in those without. Unless it can be demonstrated that the death penalty, and the death penalty alone, does in fact deter crimes of murder, we are obligated to refrain from imposing it when other alternatives exist. Further, the death penalty is not necessary to achieve the benefit of protecting the public from murderers who may strike again. Locking murderers away for life achieves the same goal without requiring us to take yet another life. Nor is the death penalty necessary to ensure that criminals "get what they deserve." Justice does not require us to punish murder by death. It only requires that the gravest crimes receive the severest punishment that our moral principles would allow us to impose. While it is clear that the death penalty is by no means necessary to achieve certain social benefits, it does, without a doubt, impose grave costs on society. First, the death penalty wastes lives. Many of those sentenced to death could be rehabilitated to live socially productive lives. Carrying out the death penalty destroys any good such persons might have done for society if they had been allowed to live. Furthermore, juries have been known to make mistakes, inflicting the death penalty on innocent people. Had such innocent parties been allowed to live, the wrong done to them might have been corrected and their lives not wasted. In addition to wasting lives, the death penalty also wastes money. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it's much more costly to execute a person than to imprison them for life. The finality of punishment by death rightly requires that great procedural precautions be taken throughout all stages of death penalty cases to ensure that the chance of error is minimized. As a result, executing a single capital case costs about three times as much as it costs to keep a person in prison for their remaining life expectancy, which is about 40 years. Finally, the death penalty harms society by cheapening the value of life. Allowing the state to inflict death on certain of its citizens legitimizes the taking of life. The death of anyone, even a convicted killer, diminishes us all. Society has a duty to end this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits. Opponents of capital punishment also argue that the death penalty should be abolished because it is unjust. Justice, they claim, requires that all persons be treated equally. And the requirement that justice bc served is all the more rigorous when life and death are at stake. Of 19,000 people who committed willful homicides in the U.S. in 1987, only 293 were sentenced to death. Who are these few being selected to die? They are nearly always poor and disproportionately black. It is not the nature of the crime that determines who goes to death row and who doesn't. People go to death row simply because they have no money to appeal their case, or they have a poor defense, or they lack the funds to being witnesses to courts, or they are members of a political or racial minority. The death penalty is also unjust because it is sometimes inflicted on innocent people. Since 1900, 350 people have been wrongly convicted of homicide or capital rape. The death penalty makes it impossible to remedy any such mistakes. If, on the other hand, the death penalty is not in force, convicted persons later found to be innocent can be released and compensated for the time they wrongly served in prison. The case for and the case against the death penalty appeal, in different ways, to the value we place on life and to the value we place on bringing about the greatest balance of good over evil. Each also appeals to our commitment to"justice": Is justice to be served at all costs? Or is our commitment to justice to be one tempered by our commitment to equality and our reverence for life? Indeed, is capital punishment our duty or our doom?