Perspectives on the murder of Caesar Most of the conspirators and the plebs: Tyrannicide was a just and proper punishment Viewpoint | Evidence | Anthony and Brutus both expect the plebs to agree that if Caesar was ambitious (if he wanted to be king when he shouldn’t be), then he deserved death. | 3:1 funeral orations | Caesar has a high and rising position and Cassius is jealous of him. He expects to benefit by removing the great man above him. | 1:2 caesar’s scene with the plebs is reported by casca2:2 caesar’s arrogance1:2 cassius’ soliliquy | Casca despises both Caesar’s desire to be king and his attempt to hide his intentions. He believes the murder is just.
This results in poor representation of convicted people in courts and unfair verdicts. Another issue associated with the penalty is that the value of life is lessened. Government should be concerned with the damage inflicted on society when a person is sentenced to be killed by juries. Being put to death by a people does not seem to be that different from a heinous murder committed by a murderer. With all of the media reporting executions like movies, societies become desensitized and accept death penalty as the right way to take care of criminals.
The Homicide Act 1957 has been criticised mainly under these following premises. The Mandatory life sentence for committing murder has been criticised for being too rigid in the cases of mercy killing, for example, a man may have helped to kill his terminally ill wife because she begged him to put an end to her pain. The court may feel considerable sympathy for the husband who carried out the act of a mercy killing, but would still be obliged to impose a life sentence. The mandatory life sentence for murder means that once convicted of the offence, the defendants face the same penalty whether they are serial killers, terrorists or mercy killers. This inflexibility prevents the court from taking into account motive or circumstances, both of which can make a significant difference to the way in which society would view the individual offence.
In the original film (Hitchcock) the old dark and colorless film, the creep music provide the viewers an idea that something wicked is about to happen. Therefore again both directors did provide enough action to carry over to each scene. In the remake the casting was truly wrong; For instance the infamous character Norman Bates, the psychopathic motel owner was played by fast talking, macho man Vince Vaughn. In the remake the Norman appears to be more of a sexual predator, whom would actually please himself as he watch Marion through a peephole in the shower scene; which gives the audience a different point of view about this film and van sant character Norman. However in the original version Anthony Perkins plays Norman Bates, who truly fit the character with calmer attitude, and good boy looks as Norman.
By definition an honorable suicide is a process whereby a person commits suicide to escape the shame of an immoral action. In my opinion, the issue was the controversial incest aspect of remaking the film. American film goers gravitate towards action packed thrillers, horror or murder films, and on some occasions success is found in gore or torture pieces. Lee’s remake of South Korean and Japanese Classic don’t appeal to our society’s ideology. Consanguinity is the challenge and key issue that imitates the entire plot of the film.
For example, “an insane murderer might slit another human’s throat, but in his reality he is slicing bread.” Now another approach to a criminal thought process is a criminal by chopping a human head and finding it funny for the victim to go looking for it.” I justify my first example by Einstein’s definition of insanity; “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten_rules).” My second example coincides with insanity, because under the Manchester Rule; “a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of the offense, the criminal conduct is the result of mental disease or defect, and the person lacks substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirement of the law.” This rule explains why Rodion Raskolnikov is not mentally insane; he was simply guilty even before the
The Black Robe movie insinuate that all the Indians were evil and that is what justified their extermination, which is why Ward Churchill a troversialist criticized the movie because he claimed to be part Indian and said that the movie was "a deliberate exercise in vilification". Most people know that is not true that not all Indians are evil, but putting that false information may change people's mind because it is a historical movie. I think people should make the movie with only the facts that they know are true and correct to make the movie. In the Crucible the director of the movie stated that John was the one that said the prayer wrong, but in fact it was Elizabeth and that for me should have changed the outcome of the story. Like my last statement, it would harm people's knowledge on history, even though it doesn't look like it has great importance it is the small details that always count.
Bateman kills people for his own satisfaction, the nameless narrator does it because of his urge to get rid of an eye. Similarities Patrick Bateman and the nameless narrator both feel the judgement or "the eye" of the antagonist. This force them to do very drastic actions in order to control their psychological problems. The main character in American Psycho appears very normal to the public. This is getting clarified in the beginning of the movie, while doing his morning routine, this goes through his mind: "There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction.
‘The White Devil is nothing more than a demonstration of imaginative ways to commit murder’ How do you comment on this judgement? In the White Devil, murderous plots and deadly scheming dominate the play, with the story revolving around the various motives and actions towards the murder of husbands, wives and brothers. However, to see the play as merely a vehicle for Webster’s fatal imaginings would be overly simplistic, and would overlook vast swathes of a play that, behind the murders, pivots on desire, love and intrigue, rather than plain bloodlust. The fact that the characters in the play are not designed to be consumed by murderous desires is apparent when Cornelia questions, ‘What? Because we are poor, shall we be vicious?’, illustrating clearly her belief that murder or violence is not the correct or dignified way of conducting oneself.
So, the ministry of information had to trim them according to the rate of exposure and movies that are shown in cinemas are rated according to their contents too. Violence in films is nothing but just a tale of murder after murder. People get killed all over the place by guns, knives, bombs and other types of killing material are displayed unceasingly and it is like a feast where killing is the main activity. As you can see, pornographic and violent scenes are censored for the sake of youths’ mental development. This serves as a positive impact to our immature viewers.