Justine pleads guilty to William's murder in "Frankenstein" because she falsely believes that confessing to the crime and accepting her fate will bring her peace and redemption. She faces immense social pressure and sees herself as already condemned by society, which ultimately leads her to make a decision that contradicts the truth.
justine confessed to the murder of william because she loved the frankenstein family and nobody was on her side when the trial was on. she wanted things to be easy so she confessed herself guilty, even though she was innocent.
Victor feels guilty because he knows that Justine is innocent and blames himself for creating the circumstances that led to her wrongful conviction. He believes that his creation of the monster indirectly caused Justine's death, as the monster framed her for William's murder. This guilt weighs heavily on Victor because he feels responsible for the tragic events that unfolded.
The jury will decide if he is innocent or guilty. In the United States, individuals are innocent until proven guilty. She isn't guilty of murder because she she killed him in self defense. If you always tell the truth, you'll never have a guilty conscience. What parent isn't guilty of spoiling a child every now and then? Do you believe that Lizzy Borden was guilty of her father's murder? O.J. was found not guilty in the murder trail of Nichole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
Victor Frankenstein indirectly caused the deaths of Justine and William through his creation of the Monster, but he himself did not commit the murders. The historical event that supports this is the trial of Captain Alfred Dreyfus in France in the late 19th century, where a miscarriage of justice occurred due to false accusations and assumptions, similar to how Justine was wrongfully convicted in the novel.
Yes.
When Justine Moritz was accused of committing the murder because she had the picture that had been given to William, Frankenstein had a reaction. His reaction to this accusation was that he thought Justine was innocent and that the creation was the real murderer.
This is when you reject a null hypothesis even though it is actually true...Example:1. A man is on trial for murder, he is actually INNOCENT, but found GUILTY - That is a Type I error2. A man is on trial for murder he is actually GUILTY, but found INNOCENT - That is a Type II error
Steve is guilty of accessory to murder of Agluinado Nesbitt. Steve was caught in the drugstore and all 3 king, Osvaldo and Bobo reconized Steve as the lookout.
Twelve jurors are trying to come to a decision on whether a young man is guilty or innocent for the murder of his father.
Please read Pat Munn's book "The Murder of Charlotte Dymond" it's not too long or heavy but it outlines EXACTLY how and why the evidence is not enough to deliver a guilty verdict, no matter whether you think he did it or not. It's not to say he's innocent, but he should not have been found guilty.
the circumstances is if you are caught on a felony like murder than your put right on trial but usually u are innocent until proven guilty
No, a Texas jury found him not guilty of murder.