Directions:
- Avoid Personal Pronouns- I, My, We, Our, Us, etc
- Use ONE piece of TEXTUAL EVIDENCE with MLA format "(III.iii.3-8.).
- First sentence defines Fairness in your own terms. Compare the term to the events in the play.
- Fairness is the topic that guides the argument. Therefore, you should make sure to FULLY DEVELOP the IDEA of fair or unfair, why?
- Answer the question.
47 comments:
The Prince's banishment of Romeo is justifiable and fair because of the people effect. People are like puppies, you show them that this is wrong and this is the consequence the y will not do it again. "Mercy but murders, pardoning those that kill(III.i.194)." The Prince explains that he knows this. If some people can get away with murder, then everyone will murder. Therefore, the Prince is just to exile Romeo.
Banishment is a fair punishment for Romeo, because even though Tybalt’s fate would have been death, it doesn’t mean that anybody on the street should just be able to kill another person with the death penalty. “If you disturb our streets again, your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace (I, I, 82-83)” Exclaimed the prince to the Montagues and Capulets. Romeo deserved to have his life put to its end for this murder. The prince made it crystal clear that death would be the penalty if either a Montague or Capulet disturbed the peace again. In conclusion, banishment was a fair and even a generous punishment for Romeo to endure, even if he ignorantly believes that he is better of dead.
Romeo’s banishment from Verona was the right punishment for the prince to give him. Romeo was very lucky that his punishment was only to be exiled and not killed. "Hence from Verona art thou banished. Be patient, for the world is broad and wide." (III, iii, 15-16).Friar Lawrence is telling Romeo that he will get through being exiled, and if he was dead he would regret it. Romeo goes on in a long speech saying he would rather die then not see Juliet again. Romeo is very emotional teenager and is saying things to make the situation seem more drastic. He needs to look at "big picture" and see that being exiled was exactly what he needs to do to be with Juliet.
Romeo's banishment was NOT justifiable because his actions, while somewhat unorthodox, was not unjust. He did what the law would do anyway, and he avenged the murder of his friend. "His fault concludes but what the law should end, The life of Tybalt (III,ii,169-170)." Yes, it is true that the Prince decreed that anyone caught disturbing the peace with another fight would be put to death. However, this was totally unprovoked from Romeo's standpoint. He tried to break up the fight. As for killing Tybalt, that was self defense. Besides, banishment is far worse than death, therefore not a fair punishment for something that was not totally in Romeo's control.
Fairness is a balance of goals in a circumstance where certain parties are involved. The Prince Escalus banishes Romeo for killing Tybalt. This is unfair because Romeo was trying to break up the fight, and in response to his actions, the Prince banished him for doing what any man would have done. Avenging Mercutio and restoring both his and Romeo’s names was not only the right decision but it was what anyone would have done. Our country has a law that protects those with good intentions who cause accidents while helping or preserving justice. It is called the Good Samaritan law. Benvolio even tells the prince that his intentions were good. “Romeo that spoke him fair, bade him bethink how nice their quarrel was… (III, i, 136-137). The Prince’s decision was based on needing to set an example, because he wants to appear impartial. His decision to banish Romeo is unfair because Romeo was acting on his best intentions and did what anyone else would have done.
When the Prince had to punish Romeo due to the death of Tybalt, which was caused by Romeo, he could have killed him or did something much more sever but instead Prince was justified and Romeo got a fair punishment by being banished from Verona. The reason why Prince has given a fair punishment to Romeo is because even thought he tried to brake up the fight in the beginning, Prince didn’t kill him. But because he killed Tybalt who is also related to Prince, made him not want to see him anymore in his presence and banished him away from Verona. "His fault concludes but what the law should end, The life of Tybalt” (III.ii.169-170.).Also Romeo has done something that the law would have already done in which is kill Tybalt because of him killing Mercutio. Even though most people would have killed Romeo if they were in Prince’s shoes because Tybalt is related to him, he tried not to be harsh and thought it over with a very fair conclusion. Even though Romeo doesn’t think he got a fair punishment.
Fairness is the balance of right and wrong. What Romeo got as punishment from Prince Escalus is not fair punishment. Romeo did what he felt was right, and that was to avenge his friend Mercutio. He took the laws upon himself and brought justice. Tybalt was the one at fault, his thirst for blood sparked the fight. The Prince had clearly warned both houses of the consequences of fighting but Tybalt decided to go against the prince's authority. " Not Romeo, Prince, he was Mercutio's friend. His fault concludes but what the law should end. The life of Tybalt(III.i.167-69)." Romeo was never the one that wanted to fight, his actions were triggered by justice and he should have not gotten punished for bringing justice.
The reaction of the Prince to Tybalt’s death and how he punished Romeo is extremely unfair. The Prince had said that it was an automatic rule of death if any of the families fought. However, there are always exceptions to the rule. Humans aren’t robots, and can change their minds accordingly. The Prince should’ve decided on Romeo’s punishment based on the situation. “Not Romeo, Prince, he was Mercutio’s friend. His fault concludes but what the law should end, That life of Tybalt(III, i, 167-169).” That quote was said by Montague justifying Romeo’s actions for killing Tybalt. Although Romeo did slay Tybalt, the Prince should’ve taken the event as a whole into deep thought. Tybalt started the fray and murdered Mercutio, and Romeo avenged his friend back by ending the life of Tybalt. Even if Romeo didn’t kill Tybalt, the law would’ve sentenced him to doom anyways. So, Romeo only did what was the end consequence for Tybalt no matter what. Death!
The Prince's decision to exile Romeo from Verona is a justifiable punishment because the action solves the problem and fairness is what is best for everyone whether they see the logical reasoning behind it. Even though Romeo fails to see then generocity in the Prince's actions, the Prince chose to spare Romeo's life out of the goodness of his heart while still solving the problem at hand. Romeo should be held accountable for the death of Tybalt, however Romeo is dissatisfied with the Prince banishing him from Verona becuse it keeps him away from Juliet. "Romeo slew Tybalt, Romeo must not live."(III.i.164) Lady Capulet understands that when you commit a crime their are no exeptions to the punishment, especially when a warning was previosly and strictly issued. The original punishment was death however Tybalt was the instigator and first traitor to the Prince's demand and Romeo only attempted to stop the fight all together the Prince should be fair to Romeo and grant him exile.
Fairness is a balance of what is truly wrong verses what is wrong but forgivable. Romeo's banishment is completely fair. He has not only killed a man, but his wife's cousin. Also, the whole fight was caused by Mercutio. He was sick of Romeo not standing up for himself againt Tybalt just because he didn't want to fight. As for Romeo, his punishment is the right thing to do. The prince said "if you ever disturb our streets again,Your lives shall pay forfeit of the peace (I, i, 102-103)." What he meant was that if there was a fight and it was caused by someone from one of the houses, the penalty would be death. Mercuric did start the fight, but is already dead, slain by Tibet. Romeo then ended up killing Tybalt partly in vengeance, and partly in self-defense. When the Prince learned of this, he said "His fault concludes but what the law should end, The life of Tybalt(III,i,188)." Here, the Prince is saying that Tybalt would have faced the penalty of death for killing Mercutio. Romeo has already done that, so why kill Romeo? The descision to kill Romeo would have been unjust, so banishment seemed like a better way to go than death. This punishment was completely and utterly fair, because when someone murders another man, some punishment must be placed upon them.
I believe this is a more than reasonable punishment for romeo for he died go against the princes words by fighting and in the end killing Tybalt but it was justified by the killing of Mercurtio earlier that scene. The prince said “If you disturb our streets again, your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace(I i 82-83)” he went back on his word for on this because Romeo truly was doing the princes job for him by executing the murderer of Mercurtio. Due to Romeo fighting for the princes cousin he was given a less severe repercussion for his actions. Although today he probably today could have came out of this case with just a slap on the wrist back in these times he was lucky to still be alive.
Fairness can be described as making a justifiable decision that will make the most people happy based on some combination of both lawful and ethical values. The Prince’s decision to banish Romeo was completely justified. Tybalt killed Mercutio, and then Romeo killed Tybalt. In banishing Romeo, the prince shows that he is not biased toward Romeo for avenging the death of his cousin, Mercutio. While it is true that Romeo was just doing what the law would have done anyway (Tybalt would have received a death sentence for killing Mercutio) it is not justified to kill someone just because it is what the law would have done anyway. Matters such as murder are for the court and the law to handle. It is not the common citizen’s right to administer punishments for such serious crimes. "Romeo slew Tybalt, Romeo must not live."(III.i.164) in this statement, Lady Capulet declares that exceptions to the lawful punishment can not be made just because of certain circumstances. The law can not pardon murder just because of good intentions. No matter what the reason, the fact is that Romeo killed Tybalt. He murdered another human being, and whatever his intentions were, murder is murder. Romeo was lucky that the prince spared his life.
The Punishment of banishment is justifiable in Romeo’s case. His crime may be murder, however it is a crime of passion to avenge his fallen friend. He was not thinking straight after just meeting Juliet and falling in love. Anyway he had to do it to defend his friend’s honor. “Mercy but murders, pardoning those who kill”. This explains the dilemma of letting a murderer go free. Nonetheless, Romeo’s actions are justifiable.
It was fair Romeo was punished because of the murder of Tybalt.
Fairness is when some one or thing recieves the same treatment among others because equality is a requirment to be fair to something. If Romeo had not killed Tybalt because of his anger towards him for killing his friend, Mercutio then just Tyabalt would have been executed. But because Tybalt is also an important person to the Capulet's and Romeo killed him, Romeo deserved to be banished from Verona. "Romeo slew Tybalt, Romeo must not live."(III.i.164)Lady Capulet insists even though Tybalt killed Mercutio, Romeo should be killed too because he did the same thing to Tybalt.
The Prince was justified in banishing Romeo because he wasn’t just being fair he was being nice, being fair would have meant that he sentenced Romeo to die but instead he was just banished which is definitely fair. In modern times Romeo would have been sentenced to death or imprisoned for a number of years to life because even though Tybalt had killed someone, so had Romeo. Romeo should have let the law deal with the death of Tybalt, not Romeo. Lady Capulet exclaimed: "Romeo slew Tybalt, Romeo must not live(III.i.164).” and she is right, so since death would be the fair option the prince Is being more than fair with his sentence of banishment. Romeo’s family and friends are in Verona and even though those will be very hard to leave there are also many people who want Romeo dead for what he did to Tybalt. So the prince is actually protecting Romeo when he exiled him.
-Emma
The banishment of Romeo is a fair and just punishment because two wrongs don't make a right. If The Prince just let Romeo off the hook he would make people think it was ok to kill people."Mercy but murderers, pardoning thoose that kill(III.i.194)". So in conclusion the punishment is fair for romeo because people just can't go around killing people and get away with it.
Banishment was not a justifiable punishment for Romeo to have to undertake for the murder of Tybalt. Romeo had good intentions, when he arrived at the brawl he was trying to end the fighting, but instead he killed Tybalt. Any man in Romeo’s situation would have responded with a similar reaction. He was being attacked so in order to protect his own life, he had to kill Tybalt. “Not Romeo, Prince, he was Mercutio’s friend. His fault concludes but what the law should end, that life of Tybalt (III, i, 167-169).” Tybalt’s life was going to be taken away by the law even if Romeo hadn’t murdered him because of his own crime. Because of this the prince concluded that Romeo’s punishment not be death, but banishment from Verona. Romeo would rather die than be banished from all he has which lies in the city of Verona.
Banishment is a fair punishment for Romeo, and the prince made the right decision by exiling him. “If you disturb our streets again, your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace (I, I, 82)” states that if people fight then they will be killed. So, not only is the punishment fair but Romeo should be glad that his life was spared. The prince had ever right to banish him and even to kill him. Romeo was foolish to partake in the fight and should be punished for that.
sean c
Romeo Montague has committed a crime and has received a punishment that is not justified or fair. Romeo deserved a rather more harsh punishment than banishment from Verona. The Prince had already made his decision to peace killers previously in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. "If you ever disturb our streets again, your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace (I.i.86-87). Prince Escalus stated here that if anyone unrests the peace, they will die. Romeo has been banished because he killed a man who is already a murderer but he is dead. But the murder committed by Tybalt had nothing to do with it and therefore, Romeo ought to be sentenced to death.
- SP
Fairness is a description of a situation that is just in its fulfillment of the law. As such, the Prince's response to Romeo's action of killing Tybalt is, in the strictest sense, not fair. Indeed, his punishment for Romeo is munificent under the circumstances. Early on in the play, the Prince himself declares "If ever you disturb our streets again, your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace" (I.i.82-83.). Having established death as the consequence for violence, logic dictates that justice must come in the form of death for the person who commits the violence. Here is where established law is not fulfilled in a just manner. The Prince banishes Romeo instead of having him killed. In terms of fairness, there is an incongruity in what the Prince says and what the prince does. The fair response would be to have Romeo killed, as justice intends. Not following through with punishment creates a situation that is not just, and therefor not fair. Banishment is not justifiable, and the Princes choice is another example of authority making mistakes.
Romeo's banishment was a justified punishment because he is too young to be executed and he may have murdered Tybalt but only because Tybalt killed Mecurtio. Also exiling Romeo could help him grow up because he is going to have to live on his on in a different place. "His fault concludes but what the law should end that life of Tybalt (III, ii, 169-170).” Montague is saying that Romeo did what the law would have done anyways which is slaying Tybalt for murder. It is only fair that he gets a punishment that is not as bad as death. The punishment was fair because Romeo may have murdered someone but he was only doing it out of the rage he got when he saw Mercutio die before his eyes, although he is still considered a murder he did not start this conflict and tried to stop it at first. Through fairness the prince was able to make his decision about Romeo's punishment.
fairness is when a punishment is given to everyone, without any exceptions, and it's an "an eye for an eye" type of bargain. the Prince was not fair with Romeo's punishment because he said "if ever you disturb our streets again, your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace."(ACT I, scene i, lines82-83). the Prince says that if you disturb us, you'll be killed for disturbing peace, but when Romeo kills Tybalt, the Prince, instead of having Romeo die, has him exiled from Verona, which is not what he "promised" as a punishment. because the Prince let Romeo slide by with only minor punishments, he was not fair to everyone else who had died because of this punishment law. if the Prince was truthful to his words, then the Prince would have listened to Lady Capulet's request, and he would have had Romeo killed.because Romeo was allowed to live, the Prince was not fair, so the rightful punishment for killing Tybalt should have been Romeo's death.
Fairness is being able to chose the right thing without letting anything effect that choice except the choice itself. Almost all of the decisions in the play aren't fair. They are all bias because the play is about two families that are fighting, so their decisions will always be to help their own family or hurt the other family. The Prince's decision to banish Romeo was completely unjust. "If ever you disturb our streets again, Your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace"(I.i.82-83). If the Prince wanted to be fair he would have stuck with his word and killed Romeo. Tybalt might have disturbed the streets first by killing Mercutio, but Romeo had no right to punish Tybalt, the law would have. What the Prince did was not just, it was kind. If there was anyone else in his shoes they would have undoubtedly have done the same thing, it is part of human nature to be kind to those who try to do the right thing, like Romeo did.
The Prince's reaction and sentence is going against his word which he made clear earlier, but logically is the right decision. Earlier, when the servants were fighting the Prince told them, “If you disturb our streets again, your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace." (I, i, 82-83)” Romeo was a part of violence having fought and killed Tybalt, so technically he should be immediately sentenced to death. But logically, it is fair. Tybalt killed Mercurtio, starting this whole shebang. Tybalt's punishment would have been death, and so it was dealt to him, it was just delivered to him by Romeo, not by the hand of the Law.
Fairness is the question of weather somone has truly done somthing wrong enough to be punished. Romeo being banished is very justifiable and fair. "if you ever disturb our streets again,Your lives shall pay forfeit of the peace (I. i. 102-3.)." Here we find out clearly that any fighting between the montagues and the capulets will be punishable by death. In Romeo's situation he is lucky because he is not being sentenced to death, but merely banishment. Some may even say it is unfair that Romeo did not get killed because he broke a rule and the punishment was death. The banishment of Romeo is more than fair on the prince's part and some even say it is unfair on the point that he did not get killed.
-Kdog
The banishment of Romeo is fair because he was really suppose to be killed, but no the Prince thought about it and it was only fair that Romeo could live because he thought he was doing a good thing to get revenge for his friend. In Act I the Prince says " If you disturb our streets again, your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace (Act I, Scene I 82-83)". Romeo's situation is kind of different he only killed someone to get revenge and that is different than just plain out murder so then the Prince just banishes Romeo. The banishment is justible because his situation is much different than any other person who commits murder.
-Tk
To be fair is to be just, if you change your mind on a law you are not being just, therefore the princes decision was not fair or just. "If ever you disturb our streets again, Your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace." (I.i.82-83.), by this part of the princes speech he is saying if you guys fight again, you will be killed. Later on after the fight the prince goes back on his word by saying "And for that offense Immediately we do exile him hence."(III.i.169-170.). If the prince was being fair Romeo would have been killed and according to what Romeo says while with the Nurse and Friar Lawrence it sounds like he would rather be killed then exiled because being exiled he'll never be able to see Juliet again. "Ha, banishment! Be merciful, say "death," For exile hath more terror in his look, Much more, than death. Do not say "banishment."" (III.iii.12-14). Even though the punishment the prince decides to give Romeo instead of death is more reasonable he is not being just.
Fairness is is applying justice where do, but more importantly takes into account all evidence, yet still does not treat others differently under same rule, and unbiased. In the play of "Romeo and Juliet", the Prince of Verona's decision of banishing Romeo for the killing of Tybalt was a fair punishment. Fair it is because he started thinking with the evidence of the killing, the witnesses, and the body. Also, he knew he had warned both houses of the consequences for their fighting."His fault concludes but what the law should end, The life of Tybalt (III,ii,169-170)." But also, Benvolio was a witness, and he explained the depth of conversation and what took place before the killing, of Tybalt, which still not taking away the fact of murder, lightened the punishment because of the new evidence. He could not just not punish anybody, because then more violence would break out. Therefore, for any disagreement to be fairly absolved, justice must be dealt but also must be balance with truth and defined and agreed upon tie breaker.
Fairness is judgment made without biased opinions or personal motivation; in Romeo and Juliet most of the outcomes and decisions were not made fairly due to the characters' biased opinions towards their own families. The Prince's judgment was not fair, Romeo should had been executed like promised, but the Prince was biased towards his own family because Romeo killed Tybalt who had murdered one of his family members, Mercurtio. "There lies the man, slain by young Romeo that slew thy kinsman, brave Mercurtio. (III, i)" The Prince was not fair in his decision to have Romeo banished instead of killed, even though he himself had earlier vowed that any disturbance would result in death. The Montague's were biased towards Romeo's fate being less severe because Romeo was one of their family members, and even though he was a murderer, and disturbed the peace knowing the consequence of death, they didn’t think he should be executed even thought that was what was fair.
Fairness is a balance of what is a truly wrong verse what is a wrong but is still forgivable. Romeo's banishment is completely fair. He has killed a man, a man of high stature. Also, the whole fight was caused by Mercutio because he made Tybalt angry before Romeo arrived. Also Romeo’s consequence is acceptable because he knew before hand, that if there was violence then there would be consequence as the prince said "if you ever disturb our streets again, Your lives shall pay forfeit of the peace” (I, i , 102-103). Mercutio did start the fight, but is already dead, slain by Tybalt. Romeo then gets into a situation of killing Tybalt partly in vengeance, and partly in self-defense. When the Prince found out about this, he said "His fault concludes but what the law should end, The life of Tybalt” (III, i, 188). The Prince is saying that Tybalt would have gotten death for killing Mercutio. Romeo has already killed Tybalt, so why kill Romeo? The consequence of death to Romeo would have been unfair, so banishment seemed like a fair punishment, than death. This punishment was completely fair, because when someone murders another person, then the punishment must be placed upon the ones responsible.
-HS
The definition of fairness is, free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. In the Play, the Prince is not fair. This is unfair to the people of Verona because Romeo got off easy and didn't get the proper punishment. In addition the punishment is unfair to Romeo because he was trying to stop fighting between Tybalt and Mercutio. Then Mercutio got stabbed and Romeo retaliated. Therefore he killed Tybalt for a good reason which in Romeo's eyes is unfair. "Not Romeo, Prince, he was Mercutio's friend. His fault concludes but what the law should end, The life of Tybalt” (III.iii.167-169.). Montague is saying that it wasn't Romeo's fault it was Tybalt's fault, and now Tybalt is dead. In conclusion, the prince is unfair because Romeo was trying to protect his friend.
-djon
The punishment for Romeo was extremely fair seeing as the severe crime he committed. There is no excuse for someone killing another person even if it is to avenge a friend’s death. Romeo got of easy compared to what he should have gotten. The prince even warned both the families that they would be killed if they got into another fight. “If ever you disturb our streets again, your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace” (I.I.82-83). Therefore since Romeo’s act of killing Tybalt was avenge for Mercutio death, Romeo’s punishment was very fair. Romeo didn’t deserve death himself, but also didn’t deserve to get off the hook. From this it concludes that Romeo’s punishment of banishment was very fair.
"Fair" is based on perspective and opinion, what one person considers to be fair may be unfair to another, therefore to the Prince it was "fair" of him to banish Romeo because he warned him in advance that any more fighting would lead to consequences. "If ever you disturb our streets again,Your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace." (I.i.86-87) It was fair of the Prince to banish Romeo because he was full aware that there would be consequences for violent courses of action, although in Romeo's perspective Tyblt acted first, Romeo is still at fault.
SR
For the prince to banish Romeo is a more reasonable and fair,and justifiable thing for the action he was accused of. In this case Romeo was extremely lucky to be banished/exiled instead of killed, because of what the prince said in act one. Romeo's situation is even harder to deal with because not only did he kill someone but he killed his wife's cousin. As the prince warned them, "If you ever disturb our streets again,Your lives shall pay forfeit of the peace (I,i,102-103)". Here the prince is saying if there is any fight or arguement between your houses/families, that the consequence would have an outcome of death. After the fight between Mercutio,Tybalt, and Romeo and the prince found out he stated, "His fault concludes but what the law should end, the life of Tybalt(III,i,188)". This is when Romeo has been accused and charged guilty for killing Tybalt and the prince has found out but is trying to figure out what his punishment should result in. This statement is also saying that Tybalt's fate would have been death for killing Mercutio but Romeo has already taken care of that. The punishment that was placed upon Romeo seems to be completely and ultimatly fair according to what he did, when any murder takes place, the murderer should receive a punishment or suffer from a consequence.
Fairness is to be reasonable by assessing what is right or wrong in the situation. Banishment is a fair punishment for Romeo. The prince had warned the Capulet and Montague families of the punishment they would be sentenced to if there was any more fighting. “If you ever disturb our streets again, your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace. (I.i.82-83)” Romeo was not killed because he was doing what the law would have done and also he had originally tried to stop the fighting. He is still lucky to be getting away from the incident with his life. If the prince had let Romeo off without a punishment then people might get the impression that they could kill and get away with it. The prince doesn’t want give this impression but he doesn’t want to kill Romeo either.
Fairness is when every party is given the consequences, good or bad, they deserve based on their respective actions. This is not what was carried out in the decision of the Prince. Although it is true Romeo received a fair warning about disturbing the peace, so did Tybalt and he blatantly disobeyed it when he fought and killed Mercutio. Although Mercutio provoked Tybalt, it was Tybalt’s aggression that actually started, and more importantly ended the fight with Mercutio’s Death. This breach of the law on Tybalt’s part would ultimately end in his swift death as a consequence of his actions if it were not for Romeo. When Romeo killed Tybalt he took the place of the system of justice that was in place, which, although unlawful had the same outcome that would have been achieved by the law. "His fault concludes but what the law should end, The life of Tybalt (III.ii.169-170)." Murder is not something that is so easily forgivable and for that Romeo should receive punishment. He should have waited for the law to take action against Tybalt even if the end result was the same. Although he made mistakes in his judgment, Romeo’s punishment should have been one much less severe than banishment.
To be fair is to be free from dishonesty and injustice, to treat someone in a legitamate way, the way the prince treated Romeo. The fact that the prince banished Romeo from Verona instead of sentancing him to death, was more than fair because to be exiled is better than to be killed. The prince is indeed justified in his desision of the punishment of Romeo for murdering Tybalt. Considering that although Tybalts fate would have been death, it would be insane for people to be randomly killing others on the streets."If you disturb our streets again, your lives shall pay the foreit of the peace (1,1,82-83)" Declaired the prince to the feauding Montagues and Capulets. Therefor Banishment was more than a fair and rightful punishment for Romeo's wrong actions. The prince made it clear that if you disturbed the peace, your life would be put to an end. He gave Romeo a generous break by doing no more than telling him to leave Verona.
- Haley C
The Prince's punishment for Romeo is fair, for more than one reason. Romeo's punishment is fair because he killed Tybalt because Tybalt killed Mercutio for being a Montague. Romeo didn't want to kill Tybalt but did for the sake of Mercutio and to give Tybalt what he deserved. What Romeo really wanted to do was stop the fight. "Hence from Verona art thou banished. Be patient, for the world is broad and wide." (III, iii, 15-16). The Prince's punishment for Romeo is not to be killed but he is banished from Verona. Death is much worse than being banished from just one place. Romeo did not deserve death because he did not kill Tybalt for being a Capulet, but for killing Mercutio for being a Montague.
The prince did not live up to the definition of fairness. Fairness means following the rules and being unbiased, and the prince was the one who set the rules first. “If you disturb our streets again, your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace” (I.i.82-83.) were his words to all of Verona and the two feuding families. He is telling the people of Verona that if they fight or kill one another, that the punishment will be death, and he made this clear in his public speech. The prince made a promise to his people, telling them the consequence of fighting, and he did not keep that promise. When Romeo stabbed and killed Tybalt he knew of what would come with his actions but he did it anyway. It does not make sense and it is not just for the prince to just ignore what Romeo did and make an exception for him. Fairness means abiding by the rules and the prince did just the opposite of that. Romeo’s banishment from Verona is definitely not justified, it goes against everything the prince worked for and believes. The prince contradicts himself and in this situation he is being lenient (or biased towards Romeo) and unfair to the innocent people in Verona.
Fair is an opinionated topic, because what one person believes to be fair could be entirely unfair to another person. At the beginning of "Romeo and Juliet" the Prince made it very clear to the Capulet's and Montague's that if they were caught fighting again and disturbing the peace in Verona, then they shall be sentenced to death, "If you disturb our streets again, your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace (I, i, 82-83)”. The Prince did not keep his word though, because during the fight between Mercutio, Tybalt, and Romeo, Romeo was the only one to live but according to what the Prince said in Act I, he should soon have been sentenced to death, but instead he just exiled him from Verona to Mantua. Since Romeo didn't start the fight, one might say that it is fair that he was not sentenced to death, but he was still part of the disturbance.
-Hannah
Fairness is trying to make all sides or parties equally satisfied and the Prince attempted to make the fairest decision he could. This was a difficult decision for the Prince to make because not only were laws broken, but the slain Mercutio was related to the Prince himself. It is up to the Prince to maintain order in Verona. "Romeo slew him, he slew Mercutio. Who now the price of his dear blood doth owe?" (III.i.165-166). The Prince is trying to balance one life for the other, Tybalt's over Mercutio's. According to the letter of the law Romeo should be put to death because he killed Tybalt. But why do men make laws? They make laws in order to seek justice. Tybalt murdered Mercutio, and for that Tybalt should be put to death. Romeo then killed Tybalt because in retaliation of Mercutio's murder. Although Romeo should not have taken the law into his own hands, Tybalt's ultimate death was justified. The Prince could not leave Romeo's actions unpunished, so he chose to banish him rather than having him put to death. In an imperfect world the Prince tried to meter out justice in the
fairest manner he could.
To be fair is to not choose a side, to be in the middle of an arguement. In the situation that Romeo's in, he is banished from Verona after killing Tybalt,Lady Capuley's nephew. The prince is fair because Romeo killed Tybalt because Tybalt Killed Mercutio, his friend. Romeo is ungreatful to the prince's fair choice not to have Romeo killed. He thinks that there is no life anywhere else besides in Verona, because Juliet is in Verona, and flies and dogs can look at her but romeo cannot.
The Prince banished Romeo and it is fair because Romeo disrupted the peace and he already knew that whoever disrupted the peace would be executed. He was not executed though, just exiled, which is fair because Tybalt had killed Mercutio which disrupted the peace so he was suppose to die anyways. "If ever you disturb our streets again, your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace." (I.i.82-83). The Prince specifically told the Montagues and Capulets that if they disrupt the peace they would die. Since both families disrupted the peace, and Tybalt had already been killed, he only banished Romeo. Tybalt had gotten away with murder before the Prince could have punished him; therefore, it was only right to exile Romeo.
~ED
One of the people that is unjustly punished is Romeo. He killed Tybalt for killing Mercutio (unjust murder). If Romeo did not kill Tybalt, the law would have killed him anyways. Saying that Romeo is unfair in his actions is the same way of saying if the Prince sentences Tybalt to death, his actions would be justified and fair.
pp man
Post a Comment