Monday, March 1, 2010
Romeo and Juliet Act III: question 1
1. The prince goes back on his promise to execute any citizen caught fighting in the streets when he decides Romeo's punishment will be banishment from Verona. In your opinion, why does he do this? Is it fair? Should Romeo be punished at all? Remember, Romeo went after Tybalt; it was not self defense...but revenge. Due Wednesday 3/3/2010 by midnight.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
When the Prince finds out what happened in the streets, he decides not to execute Romeo, but to banish him from Verona. Now this may seem unfair considering that the Prince clearly said he would kill the next person to fight in the streets. Tybalt and Mercutio are both already dead from the fighting, but Romeo lives after killing Tybalt. Tybalt was the one to kill Mercutio.
I think that Romeo should of course be punished because he broke the rules, even though I think he was really just mad that Tybalt killed his dear friend. Still, this is not an excuse. Rules are rules, but in this case it think killing anyone for fighting the streets would be a bit extreme. I think the prince decides to just banish Romeo because he is so young. Also, Tybalt killed Mercutio who was a nephew of the Prince. The Prince was probably mad because of the fighting but might have held back on punishing Romeo because he killed his nephew’s killer. If you are a ruler you should not have a weakness in changing rules or favoring one side. The Prince in the end though I don’t think wants to kill anyone. He just wants to make his point clear about fighting in the streets.
The Prince less severely reprimands Romeo for his pernicious transgression because Mercutio is related to the Prince. When the Prince arrives where Tybalt is slain, Benvolio cries, “There lies the man, slain by young Romeo, That slew thy kinsmen, brave Mercutio.” This judgment of mere banishment is not fair. The Prince had promised death to the next disturber of the streets of Verona–making no mention of an “Except for he that slays the slayer of my kinsmen” clause. Therefore, Romeo deserves execution, not banishment. Vengeance is not a plausible excuse for infracting the Prince’s law. The only justification for street fighting should be self-defense, in which Romeo was clearly not acting.
In Act I of Romeo and Juliet, the prince wants to end all fighting in the streets. This he feels will help make Verona a better city. He declares by royal proclamation that “If ever you disturb our streets again, Your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace.” (Act I sc. I pg.15) This means that he will execute anyone who fights in the streets. No exceptions! However when Romeo kills Tybalt, he was acting out of revenge for Tybalt’s killing of Mercutio, who happens to be the prince’s nephew. I have nine nieces and nephews and I would definitely be very angry at the person that killed anyone of them. I think that the prince probably feels the same way about Mercutio. Mercuito was an excellent swordsman and was a very funny person. I’m sure that the prince was partial to Romeo because he was first one of Mercuito’s closest friends and he was finishing Mercuito’s last battle for him.
Even in today’s society and justice system there are many flaws. However, these flaws cannot ever be resolved. Whenever something is based on the honor system, some people will take advantage of this. People can always commit perjury and lie under oath. Some people are just by nature able to lie under oath and then live with themselves. The court system cannot do anything about this. They need people to give testimonies so the jury can hear a recollection of what happened. However there are always two sides to every story. Also the jury is not prefect. People could always be prejudice to a certain sex, religion, or ethnicity. This is another subjective area of the justice system.
I feel that both of these factors also played a role in this scene of Romeo and Juliet. Both sides of the story from the Montagues and Capulets would have been told favoring their side. Benvolio was chosen to tell the recount of the story and since he is a good boy he decided to tell the un-bias truth. The prince is like the bias jury, he definitely was bias toward Romeo because he decided to pardon him by only banishing him from Verona instead of killing him. No, this is technically not fair, but in my opinion Tybalt was the most at fault because he is the one that challenged Romeo to a duel and initiated the fighting. Yes, Romeo should be punished because he participated in the fighting out of revenge. Even though Tybalt started the fighting Romeo had just as big apart as anyone else by killing Tybalt.
After seeing Mercutio slain at the hands of Tybalt, Romeo believes that he has become effeminate and proceeds to fly into a rage that in turn ends in the death of Tybalt. The punishment for Romeo’s killing of Tybalt should be death, as stated in Act I by Prince Escalus. Within his speech to the citizens during Act I, the Prince declares that the fighting between the Montague and the Capulet’s has gone on long enough. All he wants is for there to be peace throughout the streets of Verona and has decided that he will put to death anyone who disturbs the city again. He then sends all those that were fighting back to their homes. It becomes obvious that he is adamant in his decree as he repeats it multiple times, “Once more, on pain of death, all men depart” (line 105).
After the murders of Mercutio and Tybalt, there are many reasons as to why the Prince may not have condemned Romeo to death. Throughout the city of Verona Romeo is a well-liked person; even Lord Capulet speaks highly of his sworn enemy’s son. “And, to say truth, Verona brags of him/ To be a virtuous and well-governed youth./ I would not for the wealth of all this town/ Here in my house do him disparagement” (lines 76-79). When Tybalt discovers Romeo’s attendance at the Capulet’s party, Lord Capulet does not mind his presence one bit and allows Romeo and his friends to stay. Another reason that Prince Escalus might have lessened Romeo’s punishment is simply because he is sick and tired of all the fighting and killing that has gone on. Though harsh, his decree to put to death any person that fought in the streets was ultimately meant to end any form of fighting and bring peace to Verona. As well as bringing peace to Verona the Prince may have lessened Romeo’s punishment due to the fact that Mercutio was related to the Prince. “My blood for your rude brawls doth lie a-bleeding” (line 199). Mercutio died at the hand of Tybalt and he is upset at both of the families for continuing the killings. Since Tybalt had started the fighting in the streets and was the first to kill, he would have been sentenced to death if he had lived. The Prince might have seen Romeo’s slaying of Tybalt as an act of justice or a proper punishment for the Capulet. The Prince may have banished Romeo for any or all of these reasons. After laying down such harsh decrees, it was necessary for the Prince to take some action against Romeo and to punish him in some way. Romeo’s punishment is only fair because though Tybalt started the fighting, he ended it and deserved the consequences of his actions.
At the beginning of the play, the prince promises that the next person to fight in the streets would be executed. Romeo’s punishment for killing Tybalt is banishment from Verona, not execution. The reason that the prince lessened Romeo’s punishment is quite obvious. Romeo killed Tybalt because Tybalt had recently killed Mercutio, Romeo’s good friend and a kinsman to the prince. The prince must have been secretly happy that Romeo avenged the prince’s relative, however the prince cannot simply disregard the law entirely. As such, the prince decided to lessen Romeo’s punishment. This of course is not fair, and Romeo deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law. Rules are made with the intention that everyone follows them. The only exception to this law is in cases of self-defense, but alas, Romeo killed Tybalt out of passion, not in defense. So in conclusion, Romeo did break the law, and he should be punished accordingly.
I agree with Sarah that rules are rules and that they should be followed no matter what. If you’re making a rule, you need to include the conditions in which the rule will not be applied to. However I disagree that the Prince banished Romeo purely based on age. I think that age was one of the factors that the Prince decided to banish Romeo on but not the only. I think another factor that influenced the Prince’s decision was that Mercutio was a relative of his. I think he wanted retribution for Mercutio’s death so he decided to give Romeo a break. I don’t think this was fair. I see where the Prince is coming from but rules are rules. Saying that Tybalt was going to be put to death anyways is not enough. Romeo needs to learn to control his emotions.
RE: Sarah Podufal
I agree with Sarah that rules are rules and that they should be followed no matter what. If you’re making a rule, you need to include the conditions in which the rule will not be applied to. However I disagree that the Prince banished Romeo purely based on age. I think that age was one of the factors that the Prince decided to banish Romeo on but not the only. I think another factor that influenced the Prince’s decision was that Mercutio was a relative of his. I think he wanted retribution for Mercutio’s death so he decided to give Romeo a break. I don’t think this was fair. I see where the Prince is coming from but rules are rules. Saying that Tybalt was going to be put to death anyways is not enough. Romeo needs to learn to control his emotions.
In my opinion the Prince does this because he likes Romeo and does not want to kill him. He is also grieving for his cousin, Mercutio, who was killed a little before. I think it is fair that the Prince goes back on his promise. I think that even at the beginning it was a stupid promise to make. Personally, if I was the Prince, I would want to stop the fighting in the streets but I don’t think I would go as far as to say that the next person caught fighting in the streets would die. I do think that is a little bit harsh. Also I think that Romeo shouldn’t be punished at all. Or maybe he should be punished; however I think death is a little severe. Romeo was not going after Tybalt because he hated him, he was going after him because he just killed Romeo’s best friend. I think that it was fair after Romeo killed Tybalt. Now both houses had lost someone and Romeo had avenger his friend. In addition I think that if Romeo had not gone after Tybalt and killed him, Tybalt would have eventually gone after Romeo and killed him.
I know the Prince had promised death to whoever was the next person to be caught fighting; but if you really think about it Tybalt was the one who started all the fighting and upsetting in the streets of Verona so technically Tybalt would have been the one to be executed. And since Romeo already killed him, the Prince’s job is already done. Overall I think that Romeo being banished from Verona is a fair punishment. I would have thought that death was too severe but that anything less than being banished would not have been enough.
I think the prince changes his mind because he is sad that Mercutio, a relative of his, is dead. He probably thought Tybalt deserved death because he killed Mercutio. Even though it shouldn't have been Romeo who killed Tybalt; he would have been sentenced to death anyway. If Romeo hadn't killed Tybalt, the Prince would have surely sentenced him to death.
I, personally, don't think it was fair that the prince went back on what he previously said and just banished Romeo. If he makes a law, he should make everyone stick to it. He shouldn't let his emotions get the best of him in matters of the law. Romeo should definitely be punished because, after all, he did murder someone. Just because someone kills your friend, doesn't mean you should kill him. If Romeo hadn't acted on impulse, he would have stopped and realized that the prince would sentence Tybalt to death, as promised. Romeo wasn't defending himself, he was just angry, which isn't a good reason to kill someone.
Post a Comment