Victor created the monster with himself in mind. The monster is his other half, in a way he's living vicariously through his creation. Victor and the monster both alient themselves to achieve different things, biut at the same time the same thing.

Victor creates the monster without fully thinking of the consequences of what's to come. Like Dallas' argument Victor exhibits the qualities of a curious child. He comes up with an idea that fascinates him and will not stop until he achieves his prize only to discover that it is the complete opposite of what he thought. His incapability to think through his entire creation of the monster exhibits his lack of responsibility because he abandons the pile of rotting flesh once he discovers his motives were in fact not to bring life to the monster, but rather be able to achieve such a goal, not actually bringing a human to life from a multitude of rotting corpses.

Victor is similar to Goethe's Faust character who went on a quest for knowledge that took a turn for the worst. Faust made a deal with Lucifer for his soul in exchange for supernatural powers. After the deal is made, Faust doubts his decision. He ultimately is persuaded by the Good Angel to repent and return to God. Unfortunately, Victor does not have the benefit of divine intervention. Victor instead created a demon without the knowledge of it's superhuman strength and other powers. He did not completely think through the process of the consequences of making a human of an eight foot stature compiled of body parts from different dead human beings. Nobody convinced Victor to turn to God and away from his creation, rather he abandoned his creation and as a result dealt with the issues that befell him because of his dastardly deed.

In a way, Victor's creation of the monster exhibits his desire to be more like God. At one point, Victor says, "A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me." Of course, Victor learns his creation was a mistake and he shuns the monster. Perhaps because he has accomplished his goals, and his desire to be like God is complete.

An advantage of having a jury is that the person on trial gets a verdict from a neutral voice in the case from an unrelated outside group of people. The jury gets to hear both sides of the case, view evidence, and gets to view how the defendant responds to the case. The juror then gets to cast their vote, based on their feelings about the case. Without the jury the choice would be left up solely to the judge, who sometimes let their personal views on the case and/or defendant affect their better judgment.

A disadvantage of trial by jury is that a jury is made up of 12 ordinary Americans selected by random. 12 Americans who had to take time off of their personal lives and probably have better things to do with their time then sit in a court room with a bunch of strangers for lord knows how long. For this simple reason there is no guarantee that the person on trial will have a completely fair trial. Those jurors are going to do whatever it takes to get out of there as soon as possible, even if that may mean following the crowd and going against what they believe and send an innocent person to prison.

In today's society we portray guns and violence as a way of life. We glorify to children that it's ok to shoot unsuspecting civilians with a sawed off shotgun, and it's normal to own guns just like a couch! I don't believe totally banning guns is the way to go, but we should come together as a nation and realize the path were headed down. In this era getting a gun is just as easy as going to the store and getting milk. We have made it to easy for people to obtain guns. Totally restricting them won't solve this issue though, it'll just escalate it. If we make obtaining permits for owning guns and distributing them stricter than we can cut down gun violence tremendously.

I agree somewhat with Carlton. Punishing everyone for a select out of whack few could be detrimental in the long run. As he[Carlton] put by restricting the sells of fire arms would put alot of people at risk, but it would not hurt more than helped. If there is a restriction on guns in America crimes would drop significantly. The government would control the distribution of guns therefore being more able to monitor who can, and cannot own guns.

Our Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing individual rights. How do we know this? The Ninth Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, we have other rights beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution, and the federal government is not granted any powers to deny us those rights. Now yes the constitution preserves citizens the right to own a gun, but this right can't contradict a person's right to feel safe in their own country. If a person feels that they need a gun to protect themselves and/or family, then as long as they use wisdom when it comes to the weapon then there will be no issue. It's when people choose to use guns as a solution to problems, that we start having trouble. Terrorist, gangs, idiotic shooters, and others are all examples of individuals who use weapons for harm; and when people fear these individuals they start to feel they need weapons for protection. We won't be able to solve a thing if everyone is so terrified of being killed that they're running around with guns! As a society we must use intelligence when it comes to guns; for example if you have kids don't leave your guns lying around, or somewhere easy for them to get to. Keep them under lock and key, and keep the key in a place where you only have access to.

I agree with this statement like you state at the end "guns don't kill people, people kill people". I could just as easily stab a person in a major artery with a pencil as i could shoot them, but i don't see anyone trying to band pencils!