1) Please read Frankenstein by Mary Shelley - Chapters III-VIII (pp. 23-60)
2) Complete a blog response using the prompt below (use direct evidence from the text).
Prompt: a) One way to read the final chapters of Volume One is to consider what Mary Shelley might be saying about the justice system. What is the problem with the judicial system?
b) Also, is Frankenstein a condemnation of science? Given what you have read so far, what examples from our current society do you see metaphorically happening in this novel?
Mary Shelley could be pointing out the issue of circumstantial evidence and prejudice against the accused eclipsing the character and actual innocence of the accused. For though Elizabeth attests to Justine’s character, the judges had already made up their minds to condemn her, and nothing could be done to persuade them of her innocence. On page 60, Elizabeth attempts to again coerce the judges into believing in Justine’s innocence, but her “heart-rending eloquence failed to move the judges from their settled conviction in the criminality of the saintly sufferer.”
ReplyDeleteFrankenstein is not so much a condemnation of science as it is a condemnation of pursuing one topic with the utmost passion that inevitably removes all consequences from the person’s mind. The whole AI situation that’s currently unfolding before us is one that I see metaphorically happening in this novel. Perhaps at first sight AI seems like a smart idea, but when you really think about how it works, to me it seems like a recipe for disaster, just as Frankenstein attempting to and successfully creating a being sounded like a bad plan from the beginning.
The final chapters show the judicial system convicting an innocent woman, and forcing a false confession out of her. For me, it isn’t about the judicial system, but how the flaws of human nature manifest in it. People’s own prejudices and beliefs and biases suddenly decide someone’s life, and simply put, people are not perfect.
ReplyDeleteFrankenstein, for me, reads less like a complete condemnation of science, but rather a warning about unintended consequences. If you aren’t ready to deal with unintended consequences, if you don’t have every reasonable safety in place and a readiness to adapt to an unanticipated or unforeseeable consequence, you shouldn’t open the metaphorical Pandora’s box, because you can’t close it again once you discover a million problems hiding alongside the thing you wanted to find. Victor doesn’t do that, he makes no preparations for if the creature is violent or a killer, if it attacked him or fled or tried to destroy his research. There’s always a risk/reward balance with new technology, and as technology advances, both sides of the scale are being stacked higher. CRISPIR, and other gene-altering tech for example, has the potential to cure countless diseases, or create a virus to wipe out humankind, so you’d best be absolutely sure you’ve done it right before you release it. I think however, the most important message is to remember the risks, to not be entirely caught up in the potential rewards, especially now as risk and reward are both greater than ever before.
I think Shelley is certainly pointing out prejudice against the accused, not only by the judges but by the public. Justine looked to individuals to attest to her character in a hopes it would show the court she was a good person and didn't kill William, but Shelley writes that, " fear and hatred of the crime of which they supposed her guilty rendered them timorous, and unwilling to come forward (56)." There was no innocent until proven guilty, and it was the public's opinion that came to weigh heavily against Justine. Even Elizabeth loses faith in her after she confesses, and Justine asks her, "Do you also join with my enemies to crush me, to condemn me as a murderer (58)?" Elizabeth, who is portrayed as a good person, then turns back to her side and believes of her innocence. In my opinion, this is Shelley trying to convey that it is good to believe in innocence.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Brianna that Mary Shelley is not condemning science, but warning about perusing one topic so hard that it disturbs a person's life and their peace of mind. Frankenstein remarks that, "A human being in perfection ought always to preserve a calm and peaceful mind, and never allow passion or a transitory desire to disturb his tranquility. I do not think that the pursuit of knowledge is an exception to this rule." He continues, saying that, "If the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to waken your affections, and to destroy your taste for those simple pleasures in which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is unlawful (34)." I agree with this outlook on knowledge. No one subject should consume your life so fully that you cannot enjoy anything else. This focus may prevent you from seeing other important things, and may prevent you from seeing the outcomes/ future of your study, as we talked about in class. However, I don't think this should stop people from pursuing their interests or studies, no matter what that may be. They just need to take a step back from it on occasion and think of their impact.
I believe that Shelly was trying to point out the problem that even if the law is innocent until proven guilty everyone's brains work the other way. I believe Frankenstein is a warning of what could happen if we get too cocky with our science. with our next big invention or innovation we should think thoroughly before releasing or making something.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI think Shelly is saying that people are innocent before proven guilty with evidence that shows them that they committed the act and Justice will be service if they are proven guilty. But Justine was probably an innocent man who was scared and was under so much pressure because he was convicted of killing William. But Victor believed that he say the monster in the woods where Victor found Williams body on the ground. But in the story Shelley wrote "fear and hatred of the crime of which they supposed her guilty rendered them timorous, and unwilling to come forward (56)." Meanwhile Elizabeth is a sweet girl and is proven innocent and Justine is innocent too.
I don't think that Frankenstein is a condemnation of science because people should be able to enjoy what is going around them in the world beside being stuck in an apartment and working on reviving someone from their death. "A human being in perfection ought always to preserve a calm and peaceful mind, and never allow passion or a transitory desire to disturb his tranquility. I do not think that the pursuit of knowledge is an exception to this rule." He continues, saying that, "If the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to waken your affections, and to destroy your taste for those simple pleasures in which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is unlawful (34)." But I also believe that people should also concentrate on what they want to achieve but not so excessive like ur ignoring ur family and friends to change a lifestyle and bring them back to life.
Justice at the time of this novel was a highly flawed art that often left room for error while considering the wrong facts and forgetting others, thus leading to false accusations like in the case of Justine. However, in overall it’s more a case of innocence than guilt. Throughout the book this flawed sense of judgement had been prevalent even on a the level of single characters, particularly in Victor’s judgement to create the monster. This book very much encompassed the effect of ignorance and innocence on decisions, particularly this sort of godly punishment for “unholy” judgments like the monsters creation. Furthermore, the portrayal of religion versus science shows the condemnation of science, depicting the monster, this unholy thing, killing this pure child, “with sweet laughing blue eyes, dark lashes and curling hair.” Together the contrast of this demonic creature against this cherub like child is obvious in its depiction of religion. Also in Victor's new found fear of science there is also this sense of eating the apple and being dispelled from the the holy into turmoil. Perhaps something might change in the chapters to follow, but up until now justice and science have been greatly discredited in the favor of religion.
ReplyDelete-eileen
The final chapters of volume one point out the various flaws of the justice system.
ReplyDeleteMary Shelly is pointing out the problems with relying on evidence that can be enterpreted in many ways.
Along with relying on shaky evidence the judges also make up their own minds on if the ones being judged are
guilty or not. Not even concrete evidence can convince the judges nor can testimonies from Elizabeth.
Frankenstein isn't really condemming science at all really. I think that it's more about condemming obsession
and losing sight of what you are doing. Victor didn't think that he would end up making a monster so he didn't
use proper precautions in the creation of Frankenstein. Victor was too obsessed with what he could do but not what he should do.
The problem with the justice system in the book is that the judges don't use solid evidence towards their judgement. Elizabeth attempts to back up Justine by saying that she extremely cares for the Frankenstein family, which doesn't help at all because the judges are not open-minded to actual evidence. As for Frankenstein, I believe that he is not a condemnation of science, I agree with Josh that watching out for what you do and doing what is right is more important than doing what you want.
ReplyDeleteOn page 63, Elizabeth says “William and Justine were assassinated, and the murderer escapes; he walks about the world free, and perhaps respected.” I believe that Mary Shelley is trying to say that the judicial system of the time is supremely in favor of a guilty verdict, that it was hard to get a fair trial at the time and that “innocent before proven guilty” wasn’t there. I also believe Frankenstein is not necessarily an outward condemnation of science, but a warning against going to far with something, to lengths at which you even know you are doing evil. Metaphorically, I see the possible AI and other automated computer problem represented.
ReplyDelete-Matthew Hebert
Mary Shelley is trying to point out that the justice system is flawed if we allow innocent people to be put on death row without sufficient evidence that they committed such crimes. People think that just because someone is accused of something that means that they did it and sometimes that mob mentality can take over in a court case. Frankenstein isn't necessarily a comdemnation of science but more of a condemnation of letting your ambitions control you. Much like MacBeth, Victor took his ambitions too far and it ended up punishing him in the end.
ReplyDelete(Isaac Mezher)
DeleteOne problem with volume 1 of the novel, is the flaws in the justice system. An example of this is when Justine was innocently convicted for murder, and died. I think Mary Shelley is trying to point out the flaws of the justice system and how people are innocently convicted based off of unreliable evidence. Also, I believe that Frankenstein is not a condemnation of science, but rather, a condemnation of the use of science and Victor’s skills.
ReplyDeleteMary Shelley was critiquing the justice for using circumstantial evidence (read flimsy), vying for an easy conviction instead of trying to find the real killer, and forcing confessions. For the first point, the only evidence they had, besides the picture, was that she was near the spot of the killing around the time that it took place, so they obviously made a mistake in convicting Justine of the murder. For the second point, it appears that they made little to no effort to find other suspects. For the third point, Justine was apparently tortured until a confession was gotten out of her.
ReplyDeleteMary Shelley believes that people should be “tranquil” in all of their endeavors. Frankenstein's mistake was letting his obsession consume him. In a way, this is less a warning of scientific discovery and more a warning against an addiction, one which harmed himself, his friends, and now his family.
Ethan Coyle
Clearly, Mary Shelley is drawing attention to the fact that the justice system is very flawed. They try not to complicate trials by following false evidence. For example, Justine was convicted of murder (despite not having killed anyone) based on the fact that she was near the scene of where it happened. Personally, I believe that there is also some social prejudice here, where the judges condemn Justine as she is poor. To them, there is no plausible way that someone who is rich could have killed someone. The judges cannot even be persuaded by Elizabeth, who gives eloquent and intelligent explanations as to why Justine is not the killer.
ReplyDeleteConcerning Frankenstein's character, I don't believe that he is a condemnation of science. Instead, I feel that he lets himself be led by his feelings rather than his logic. Victor's passion and devotion seems to consume his mind, twisting his thoughts. Unfortunately, this obsession also leads him to become anxious and fearful. This can be seen when his creation wanders off, leaving Victor crazed and frantic. He is also distressed when he hears of the murder, believing it to be his fault as it might have been his "monster" that did it.
-Jill Schuck
in this section of the story, we see what is known in US Law as a "miscarriage of justice". the Woman was completely innocent yet she was convicted. this is mostly attributed to the poor practices of the justice system at the time. a confession was forced out of her through torture. Shelley makes a point of conveying how much the authorities screwed up and how in that time, such miscarriages were quite common.
ReplyDeleteI’m this section, Mary Shelley is trying to get the point across that the justice system has flaws in it and they are very in favor of the guilty victim in the situation. And people are getting sent to death row with no sufficient evidence. Is Frankenstein a condemnation of science? No, He hasn't learned enough wisdom to put his efforts into something useful. The villagers have no wisdom and can't tolerate anything they are not familiar with so that’s why they don’t enjoy it. He is just letting his emotions control him.
ReplyDeleteShelley is pointing out that the judges are looking for a conviction, not the truth. They don’t account for motive, base their entire case on circumstantial evidence and force a confession out of her. She find her guilty even before the trial has started, and at the end, an innocent woman is killed because of their prejudice.
ReplyDeleteAs for Frankenstein, I think he represents the science industry. It's hard to know where to draw the line, and this is what Victor was warning Walton about. A prime example of this within modern times is the controversial topic of artificial intelligence. It has been the subject of many plots for movies, shows and books. The debate of this matter is widely discussed within society internationally, and stresses the question: What if they become too smart?
Although it is somewhat subtle, at the end of volume one, Shelly is making a point about the judicial, possibly even a few point. Firstly you see the lack of power of women. Although Justine denies killing William, it really has not effects on the proceedings. Because of some circumstantial evidence against Justine regarding a family picture, she was just assumed to be the guilty party. Even when Justine changed tactics and admitted to the murder hoping for a lesser punishment, she was executed. Going a step farther, both Victor and Elizabeth, the family of the victim and people who had been around Justine for years, believed Justine innocent. But it didn't matter. As said by my peers above, whoever was in charge of this investigation just wanted a conviction and and execution and sacrificed an in depth analysis of the facts in order to achieve those.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Frankenstein represents a condemnation of science but instead a warning. Although we may not be quite to the point of reviving corpses, our science is quite advanced and although wonderful, if left unchecked could go rogue. Frankenstein's intentions, although partly driven by ambition, appeared pure enough. During a time of grief, who wouldn't want to bring back a loved one? However, how he reacted after his creation was where he went very wrong. There is definitely some responsibility that falls onto the creators or new scientific inventions/discoveries. But Frankenstein just ran away and abandoned his creation. Shelly did not let him get away with this, we see, almost immediately, William die as a consequence of this. Currently today we are coming up with more and more life saving and extending technologies. These are wonderful but at some point I would start to wonder whether we are meddling too much. Is there a point when our earth will not even be able to support us because of the long living population?
Ellie Yates
I think what mary shelley was saying about the justice system was that it wasn't doing its full job. I believe she was saying or showing in the book that once you are accused of a crime even if you are innocent that your whole life changes. Justine was accused of murder and even though she was innocent the judicial system seemed to be trying to place it upon her. Even people trying to defend her had their troubles, for example when Justine was before the judges her friend Elizabeth tries to convince them that Justine was innocent, but they didn't believe her. I think in the way of science Mary Shelley does in a way condemn science. Science is always believed to be this great thing that celebrates and helps life, but in Frankenstein she shows it in a way that makes the audience look at science in a whole new way. In Frankenstein science is looked at as great in the beginning but then is taken to far, and its this view of science that separates the story. - Madeline Bronder
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the justice system in this book is that the judicial system was very biased and they believed that a person was guilty until proven innocent. I do not think Frankenstein is a condemnation of science but I believe that an example of this would be AI. We are still trying to figure out the smartest ways of interacting with our technology and this may end up being the end of society with how much technology is evolving.
ReplyDelete