my assignment

"suppose the person to whom Montresor is telling his sstory has turned him over to the police. Montresors lawyer might argue that his client is insane. the prosecution will argue that montresor knew exactly what he was doing, even planned in advance. write a speech for either lawyer. then role play the court room scene."

Write either an opening or closing argument for the case.
Remember that you can take the role of the defense attorney or the prosecutor. Also note that Montresor must be fairly old for his time if 50 years have passed.
Does that have an impact on his punishment?

I need some help on this! please someone help i have no idea how to begin!
i don't really understand what the assignment is.. what is prosecution!? and why would a lawyer say his client is insane if he is suppose to protect him?

The prosecution is the lawyer who represents the government. His/her job is to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. In this case, the prosecution needs to prove that Montressor is not crazy.

The defense lawyer wants to prove that Montressor is crazy so that he will escape being imprisoned or executed. The U.S. does not knowingly punish people who are not capable of knowing what they were doing. An insane person doesn't understand or know what he's doing. Usually s/he is placed in a mental institution for the insane.

This is a real case that may help you understand a plea of insanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley,_Jr.

You need to choose either the defense lawyer or the prosecution lawyer. Write a speech that tells that point of view.

Thank you for the perfect explanation

You're welcome.

Suppose the person to whom Montresor is telling his story has turned him over to the police. Montresor’s lawyer will argue that he is insane. The prosecution will argue that Montresor knew exactly what he was doing and he even planned the murder in advance. Write a speech for either lawyer, and argue your case.

Opening Argument for the Defense Attorney:

Ladies and gentlemen of the court, esteemed members of the jury, today we gather here to uncover the truth about the events that transpired fifty years ago. My client, Montresor, stand before you as an elderly man who must face the consequences of his actions. Allow me to shed light on the unique circumstances that surround this case.

The defense will argue that Montresor should not be held morally or legally accountable for the unfortunate events that took place that fateful night. It is our contention that he should be acquitted based on grounds of insanity. We must delve into Montresor's state of mind, unraveling the intricate layers of his psyche, in order to understand the truth behind his actions.

Montresor, as we know, was a man driven to madness by a perceived insult, believing himself to be a victim of betrayal. His fragile mental state led him to commit a grievous act. It is crucial to recognize that Montresor's obsession, although not an excuse, reveals a disturbed mind grappling with inner demons.

Furthermore, we will demonstrate that Montresor lacked the clarity of mind and the capability to premeditate the offenses for which he has been accused. His actions, however extreme, were the manifestation of a deeply troubled individual grappling with his own internal torment, clouding his ability to judge right from wrong.

As we assess the impact of time on punishment, we must consider the emotional and psychological growth that Montresor has undergone in the past fifty years. Punishing an elderly man for the deeds of his youth, actions committed in a clouded mental state, would be the epitome of injustice and unnecessary cruelty.

In conclusion, we ask you, members of the jury, to consider the plight of a man haunted by his own demons, battling a distorted perception of reality. Should Montresor be found guilty, let us remember the impact of time, the growth he has undergone, and the burden that has already plagued his conscience. I implore you to see beyond the surface, to analyze the depths of his mental state, and to render a verdict that delivers justice tempered with compassion.

Thank you.

[The court proceedings would continue with the prosecution presenting their case, followed by cross-examinations, witness testimonies, and ultimately, the final arguments from both sides.]

I understand that you're looking for help with your assignment. Let's break it down and clarify a few things to help you understand the task at hand.

1. The Assignment: Your assignment is to write a speech for either the defense attorney or the prosecutor in a court case. You need to consider whether Montresor, the character in Edgar Allan Poe's story "The Cask of Amontillado," should be considered insane or if he planned his actions in advance.

2. Role Selection: You have the option to take either the role of the defense attorney (Montresor's lawyer) or the prosecutor (representing the prosecution). You can choose which side you want to argue for.

3. Opening or Closing Argument: The assignment asks you to write either an opening or closing argument. An opening argument is given at the beginning of the trial and is meant to introduce your main points and persuade the jury. A closing argument is delivered at the end of the trial and is a recap of the evidence and arguments presented, urging the jury to make a specific decision.

4. Insanity Defense: The assignment mentions that Montresor's lawyer might argue that his client is insane. In a legal context, the insanity defense is a plea used by the defense to argue that the defendant was not mentally capable of understanding their actions or the consequences at the time the crime was committed. It is the defense attorney's role to present arguments that would support this defense.

Now, let's look at how to begin:

1. Start by choosing which side you want to represent, either the defense or the prosecution. This will determine whether you write a speech for the defense attorney or the prosecutor.

2. If you choose to represent the defense, you can start your opening argument by reminding the jury that it is their duty to ensure a fair trial and consider all evidence before reaching a verdict. You can then introduce the concept of the insanity defense and argue that Montresor's actions were a result of his mental state at the time.

3. If you choose to represent the prosecution, you can start your opening argument by presenting Montresor as a calculating and premeditated individual who meticulously planned his actions. You can argue that Montresor's actions demonstrate his full understanding of the consequences and make a case for premeditated murder.

Remember to support your arguments with evidence from the story and craft your speech accordingly. Make sure to consider the impact of Montresor's old age (50 years later) on his punishment and weave that into your argument.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you need any further assistance.