As punishment, Romeo is banished from Verona. Is this punishment fair?
Claim #1- (One reason that supports your general claim/thesis)
The punishment of banishment is overly harsh for Romeo's crime.
Evidence #1- (Fact or quotation from the text to support your claim)
In Act 3, Scene 1, Romeo tries to defuse the fight between Tybalt and Mercutio, but Tybalt ends up killing Mercutio. Romeo, who is acting in self-defense, then kills Tybalt. The Friar explains to Romeo that the Prince's punishment of banishment is not the worst fate possible because he could have been sentenced to death.
Analysis #1- (Explanation of how the evidence supports your point)
Although Romeo's actions were not entirely innocent, he did not purposefully seek out to harm Tybalt. He was acting in self-defense and was caught in the heat of the moment. Given this, the punishment of banishment does not fit the crime as he was not premeditating the events that unfolded.
Counterclaim #1- (Anticipating an argument against your claim)
Some may argue that Romeo deserved to be banished because he chose to fight and kill Tybalt, actions that he knew could lead to serious consequences.
Response to Counterclaim #1- (Explanation of why your claim is still stronger)
While it is true that Romeo did make the choice to fight and kill Tybalt, it must also be considered what led to this confrontation. Tybalt had been provoking Romeo and his friends, and Romeo was merely trying to defend himself and his friend Mercutio. Therefore, the punishment of banishment is still viewed as overly harsh for his actions.