Alexa Huesgen Hobbs
Guest
|
Post by Alexa Huesgen Hobbs on Jul 23, 2016 16:43:02 GMT
Because he fails to arrest Boo Radley at the end of the novel, Sheriff Tate is breaking the law. In fact he says, "I'm not a very good man, sir, but I am sheriff of Maycomb County....There's a black boy dead for no reason, and the man responsible for it's dead. Let the dead bury the dead this time, Mr.Finch. Let the dead bury the dead" (Lee 30). Atticus is too because he knows the truth of Ewell’s murder. Would you consider Atticus’ actions to be morally wrong as well as illegal? Even though Atticus has prove himself time and time again that he's an all around good person?
|
|
|
|
Post by dianadelvalle on Jul 23, 2016 17:57:19 GMT
I do not think that, in this case, the moral accuracy can be measured due to the manner of the death and who was involved. The one to kill Mr. Ewell is evidently Arthur Radley in an act of self-defense and defense of others. It is illegal to not disclose this information, but that does not necessarily mean it is bad. To involved Boo, the children, and the whole county in another major trial would be frustrating and stressful, especially for someone like Boo who does not like to be out in the first place. Mr. Ewell was also abusive, aggressive, and a liar in court, further justifying the Sheriff's choice. That being said, this is a man's life, and according to law, no matter his actions he should get proper judgement. I think it is up to the reader to decide whether breaking the law is morally wrong or right in this case. I personally believe it is fine because his various actions throughout the novel and especially at the end when he tried to kill children.
|
|
|
|
Post by madisondobson on Jul 23, 2016 18:50:57 GMT
I don't think it is illegal nor is it morally wrong. In the time that this book is set in, it's okay to excuse the action since it basically cancels itself out. Since Tom Robinson is dead and Ewell is killed, the two men who had beef with each other, no longer have that. As Diana said, a new trial would be stressful for the town and hard on Boo Radley since he doesn't like coming out of his house in the first place. All in all, the actions depicted are not illegal or morally wrong in the time period the book is set in. Today, it would be, but not in the book.
|
|
|
|
Post by zacksciallo on Jul 30, 2016 4:10:20 GMT
I don't think it is illegal nor is it morally wrong. In the time that this book is set in, it's okay to excuse the action since it basically cancels itself out. Since Tom Robinson is dead and Ewell is killed, the two men who had beef with each other, no longer have that. As Diana said, a new trial would be stressful for the town and hard on Boo Radley since he doesn't like coming out of his house in the first place. All in all, the actions depicted are not illegal or morally wrong in the time period the book is set in. Today, it would be, but not in the book. Why wouldn't it be illegal to arrest someone who is figured to be a suspect for murder? Even thought he technically saves Scout and Jem. But the fact that Boo Radley removed a issue from the community on the other hand might be enough for a small area like Maycome Country to forget all about it, in fact that is exactly what happened. The town might have even called him a hero but, following the trial and Atticus's kids involvement people might have thought that Boo Radley was involved with Tom, sparking similar lynchings like the mob Atticus broke up. |
|
|
|
Post by torytherit on Jul 31, 2016 16:37:53 GMT
I think his choice to look the other way was not morally wrong and it filled a gap that the law left. Mr. Ewell was the cause of an innocent death and then to threaten children only adds to his bad reputation and moral judgement and though no murder is quite justified this is about as close to justified as you can get. One might even argue that it almost falls into the category of self defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewklein on Jul 31, 2016 18:48:03 GMT
I don't feel that what Sheriff Tate or Atticus did was morally wrong or illegal. A man killed someone, and now he is dead. That's how it should have happened. He took away someone else's right to live, so he deserves to be punished by death, even if it wasn't death by the law of the town.
|
|
beau
New Member
Posts: 11 
|
Post by beau on Aug 2, 2016 19:39:01 GMT
I do not think Atticus's actions were morally wrong. In this broken town, nothing about the trial was morally right. When Boo Radley was protecting the children and committed murder, I believe the mayor and Atticus knew there had been to much wrong doing and chose to keep it under wraps. Boo was protecting the children, and if the truth came out it would be the same situation as the trial. Since the whole town thought of Boo as a freak, they would not think of him as a hero, but a murderer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ravyn_Bergeman on Aug 2, 2016 19:49:25 GMT
If you all remember Atticus was very hesitant to cover up the murder at first, he honestly wanted to go to court and put Arthur through a trial, because he *didn't* want to break the law. So yes it was morally bad, but Atticus and the Sheriff didn't want to make a bad situation even worse. Also the entire situation was Legal, because nothing is illegal unless you get caught.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 3, 2016 12:56:07 GMT
Food for thought.....since Boo's actions were performed in the protection of both Jem and Scout (they were being attacked) is murder the correct term for killing Mr. Ewell? Couldn't his actions have been interpreted as a form of self-defense? Or the defense of the innocent?
|
|
|
|
Post by shanarabrinkman on Aug 3, 2016 16:45:54 GMT
I believe that Mr. Ewell went after the kids to try and get back at Atticus because of his attempt to prove Tom was innocent. Boo was only trying to protect Jem and Scout, NO I do not think murder was the correct term for killing Mr. Ewell, but I also don't think it could be self defense. I see this as anther example of "don't shot a mockingbird." Jem and Scout were innocent kids that did not do anything wrong, nor did they have anything to defend themselves with, so that were Boo jumps in and defends the kids for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Noah Durrance on Aug 6, 2016 18:05:34 GMT
I think that there is more to what Sherrif Tate said than just that he was going to try and cover up the murder of Bob Ewell. When he said "let the dead bury the dead this time" I think he also meant that there had been enough senseless violence, and that Ewell's actions had come full circle. He indirectly was responsible for the death of Tom Robinson, and so by going after Scout and Jem, he was solidifying his fate. While murder may not have been the solution, like Shana said "it is a sin to kill a mockingbird" and so by going after the innocent, Bob Ewell became something less than human, and therefore doing nothing about his murder is much more forgivable.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaylagarcia on Aug 10, 2016 22:23:18 GMT
It is very difficult to distinguish between murder and self-defense or the defense of others. If the case of Boo saving the children happened today and in our state, it would most likely be viewed as partially unacceptable because he was defending the children who could not defend themselves however harmed someone in the process and did not offer them the same help. Had Boo helped Mr. Ewell after he caused him harm, the 'Good Samaritan Law', would protect him from consequences. Because Boo did not provide medical assistance or call for assistance, the good samaritan law cannot protect him. If you are involved in the abuse of another you may be held responsible even if your intention was to help. I do not necessarily agree with this however I do believe that Boo could have called the police to help Ewell. Even though Ewell was partly at fault for the murder of Tom Robinson, he still has the right to medical attention and Boo should have known that he could suffer in jail instead of allowing him to die. I believe his decisions were made with the children's best interest at heart but I'm not completely sure his actions were morally acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by kailey on Aug 12, 2016 2:38:13 GMT
I do not think it is illegal because back in the day, people would have not thought of this situation as a wrong thing. Yes it is very difficult to distinguish between murder and self-defense or the defense of others, like Kayla has said. But since the time period is very different, the out come is different. If this situation happened today, it would be very much illegal.
|
|
|
|
Post by evankinney on Aug 15, 2016 1:34:37 GMT
Because of the fact that the murder was committed in supposed justifiable defense, I don't believe that the action was entirely morally wrong, although it was illegal for Atticus and Sheriff Tate to keep the knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by romansorrels on Aug 15, 2016 1:48:56 GMT
The law doesn't really say what is right or wrong but to provide order, nor should the law force a good decision to be looked upon as a crime.
|
|
